Objective With the increasing interest in fetal repair of myelomeningoceles (MMCs) over the last decade, it is reasonable to anticipate the need for high quality and accessible educational materials for patients. Patients often look to the internet for details regarding medical topics and specifically to YouTube for informative health-related videos. This study aims to analyze the content and shortcomings of currently available videos on YouTube regarding prenatal repair of MMCs. Study Design A YouTube search was performed on December 15, 2018, using the terms “fetoscopic surgery for neural tube defect” and “fetal surgery for neural tube defect.” The first 50 videos from each search were sorted by relevance and evaluated for video source (i.e., professional, personal, or other), target audience (medical professionals or general public), general descriptive statistics (i.e., video length, number of views, number of comments), and for five areas of content determined by the authors to constitute basic patient information regarding a surgical procedure: (1) procedure details, (2) eligibility criteria, (3) alternatives to surgery, (4) surgical risks, and (5) success rate. Accuracy of videos was not assessed. Results Of the 16 videos that met inclusion criteria, only 1 discussed fetoscopic surgery. The majority (62.5%) of videos were produced by a professional source and 81.3% were targeted toward the general public rather than medical professionals. Of the 16 videos, 10 (62.5%) included details regarding the surgery, 3 (18.8%) discussed eligibility criteria, and 8 (50.0%) mentioned alternatives to surgery. Additionally, seven videos (43.8%) discussed risks of the procedure and six (37.5%) included surgical success rate. Conclusion Only 2 of the 16 videos included all five areas of content that were evaluated, and both were in regard to open fetal repair. This study not only calls attention to the initial shortcomings of YouTube videos regarding fetal surgery for neural tube defects but also demonstrates the need for further investigation and more comprehensive analysis.
Background: Bone stress injuries (BSIs) are a major source of functional impairment in athletes of all sports, with many risk factors, including athlete characteristics and type of sport. In National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletics, the stratification of programs into divisions with different characteristics and makeup has been identified as increasing the risk for certain kinds of injuries, but there have been no studies on the difference of BSI rates and characteristics between athletes in Division I (DI) and those in Divisions II and III (DII and DIII). Purpose/Hypothesis: To characterize the BSI rates in each division and compare the incidence and characteristics of BSIs within divisions. Our hypothesis was that BSI rates would be higher in DII and DIII athletes as compared with DI athletes. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: Five years of recorded BSI data in collegiate athletes via the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program were examined for the academic years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014. BSI rates per 100,000 athlete-exposures (AEs) were compared for DI versus DII and DIII athletes using risk ratios and 95% CIs. Time lost to injury, time of season of injury, and class composition of injured athletes were also compared between divisions. Results: Over the 5 years studied, DII and DIII programs reported 252 BSIs more than 1,793,777 AEs (14.05 per 100,000 AEs), and DI programs reported 235 BSIs over 2,022,592 AEs (11.62 per 100,000 AEs). The risk ratio was significant for D1 versus DII and DIII (1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44). There was a significant difference in time lost to injury in DI versus DII and DIII, χ2(5, n = 449) = 16.54; P = .006. When data were stratified by individual sport, there were no significant divisional differences in high-risk sports. Conclusion: In the current study, NCAA DII and DIII athletes had higher rates of BSI than their DI counterparts. As compared with DII and DIII athletes, the DI athletes had a significantly greater proportion of BSIs that did not result in absence from participation in sport.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.