Assessing the Quality and Credibility of Publicly Available Videos on Cervical Fusion: Is YouTube a Reliable Educational Tool?

Abstract

Background: YouTube has become a popular source for patient education, though there are concerns regarding the quality and reliability of videos related to orthopaedic and neurosurgical procedures. This study aims to evaluate the credibility and educational content of videos on YouTube related to cervical fusion. Secondarily, the study aims to identify factors predictive of higher or lower quality videos.Methods: A YouTube query using the search terms ''cervical fusion'' was performed, and the first 50 videos were included for analysis. Reliability was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. Educational quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the Cervical Fusion Content Score (CFCS). Videos were stratified by content and source, and differences in JAMA, GQS, and CFCS scores were assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify predictors of higher or lower JAMA, GQS, and CFCS scores. Statistical significance was established at P , 0.05.Results: Total number of views was 6 221 816 with a mean of 124 436.32 6 412 883.32 views per video. Physicians, academic, and medical sources had significantly higher mean JAMA scores (P ¼ 0.042). Exercise training and nonsurgical management videos had significantly higher mean CFCS scores (P ¼ 0.018). Videos by physicians (b ¼ 0.616; P ¼ 0.025) were independently associated with higher JAMA scores. Advertisements were significant predictors of worse CFCS (b ¼À3.978; P ¼ 0.030), and videos by commercial sources predicted significantly lower JAMA scores (b ¼ À1.326; P ¼ 0.006).Conclusions: While videos related to cervical fusion amassed a large viewership, they were poor in both quality and reliability. Videos by physicians were associated with higher reliability scores relative to other sources, whereas commercial sources and advertisements had significantly lower reliability and educational content scores. Currently, YouTube seems to be an unreliable source of information on cervical fusion for patients.Level of Evidence: 4. Clinical Relevance: The results of this study aid surgeons in counseling patients interested in cervical fusion, and suggest that publicly available videos regarding cervical fusion may not be an adequate tool for patient education at this time.

Evaluation of quality of diabetic foot examination on YouTube

“…This is consistent with prior research on YouTube content for other diseases and procedures, which revealed a low quality of video content. 14,[19][20][21] Also, in accordance with the present results, earlier research has shown that half of the videos linked to diabetes foot care were deemed useless. 22 F I G U R E 3 JAMA scores for video reliability.…”

“…On online search was performed in the YouTube library (http://www.youtube.com) using the keyword “diabetic foot examination” as a search term. The first 100 relevant videos resulting from this search were collated and assessed using methodology employed in previous similar research in other health conditions 12–14 . Where a non‐relevant or ineligible video was excluded, the next consecutive video was included.…”

“…The first 100 relevant videos resulting from this search were collated and assessed using methodology employed in previous similar research in other health conditions. 12 , 13 , 14 Where a non‐relevant or ineligible video was excluded, the next consecutive video was included. Exclusion criteria included non‐English videos and those with audio‐only content.…”

“…VPI provides a relative indication of how much a video was liked with respect to the view ratio, and therefore is an indicator of video popularity. 14 …”

Does Most Watched YouTube Videos Related to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Provide Sufficient Information?

“…This study revealed that the most watched YouTube videos related to CTS are insufficient in quality in terms of DISCERN, JAMA and CTSIA scores. Although numerous studies evaluated the content quality of medical information of YouTube videos, almost all of these studies used the inclusion criteria of relevancy used by YouTube search engine and included the first 50-60 videos (7)(8)(9). The studies aimed to determine the information quality of YouTube videos on CTS were also designed in same methodology (4)(5)(6)10).…”