Journals / Journal of Urological Surgery / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Are HoLEP Surgical Videos on YouTube Biased and Misleading or Are They Leading the Industry?

Pages
103–109
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: On video sharing platforms, such as YouTube, the number of reliable videos with accurate and appropriate guidance about diseases and treatments should be increased, and these videos should be allowed to be posted after they have been approved by relevant institutions, including healthcare associations and universities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the content and quality of the most relevant YouTube videos related to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:NonEnglish language videos, videos with less than 4-minute duration, and repetitive videos were excluded.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: On video sharing platforms, such as YouTube, the number of reliable videos with accurate and appropriate guidance about diseases and treatments should be increased, and these videos should be allowed to be posted after they have been approved by relevant institutions, including healthcare associations and universities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the content and quality of the most relevant YouTube videos related to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgery. Materials and Methods: The keywords “HOLEP”, “laser enucleation” and “prostate enucleation” were used to perform a search on YouTube. NonEnglish language videos, videos with less than 4-minute duration, and repetitive videos were excluded. The reactions of the viewers to the videos were evaluated by recording the “total views”, “views/month” and “likes and dislikes” parameters. The data were divided into two groups based on the source of upload: Group 1 consisted of healthcare providers and group 2 comprised of commercial companies and for-profit organizations. Results: A total of 117 videos were included in the study. A significant portion of the videos (77.7%) had been uploaded by healthcare providers. There was no statistically significant difference between the uploading groups in terms of the DISCERN and the Global Quality score, scores (p=0.484 and p=0.108, respectively). However, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials understandability and actionability scores were statistically significantly higher in group 2 (p=0.004 and p=0.022, respectively). In addition, when the misinformation scale was evaluated, there were significantly more videos with high-degree misinformation in group 2 (5.5% vs 33.3%, p=0.001). Conclusion: On video sharing platforms, such as YouTube, the number of reliable videos with accurate and appropriate guidance about diseases and treatments should be increased, and these videos should be allowed to be posted after they have been approved by relevant institutions, including healthcare associations and universities.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖRÜR, S., SİGVA, H., TAMKAÇ, N., PORGALİ, S., KULAK, B., UÇURMAK, F., GÖKALP, F., KORAŞ, Ö., YILDIRAK, E. (2022). Are HoLEP Surgical Videos on YouTube Biased and Misleading or Are They Leading the Industry?. Journal of Urological Surgery, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 103–109. https://ajindex.com/articles/568588

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Bushman W. Etiology, epidemiology, and natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am 2009;36:403-415, v
  2. Elmansy HM, Kotb A, Elhilali MM. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication rates during 10 years of followup. J Urol 2011;186:1972-1976
  3. Michalak J, Tzou D, Funk J. HoLEP: the gold standard for the surgical management of BPH in the 21(st) Century. Am J Clin Exp Urol 2015;3:36-42
  4. YouTube. YouTube in numbers [Webpage]. youtube.com. 2020;1-1
  5. The top 500 sites on the web. Alexa Internet, Inc; Accessed April 30, 2020
  6. Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Byrne N, Chiang AL, Langford A. Fake News: Spread of Misinformation about Urological Conditions on Social Media. Eur Urol Focus 2020;6:437-439
  7. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JNJ, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, Braithwaite RS, Gao L, Byrne N, Walter D, Langford A. Dissemination of Misinformative and Biased Information about Prostate Cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol 2019;75:564-567
  8. Cornish JK, Leist JC. What constitutes commercial bias compared with the personal opinion of experts? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006;26:161-167
  9. European Association of Urology. Non-Oncology Guidelines.Managment of Non–neurogenic Male LUTS. In 2020
  10. Likert R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;140:1-55
  11. The patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT) and user’s guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2020
  12. DISCERN Online. Quality criteria for consumer health information; 2020
  13. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105-111
  14. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2070-2077
  15. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277:1244-1245
  16. Sajadi KP, Goldman HB. Social networks lack useful content for incontinence. Urology 2011;78:764-767
  17. Adhikari J, Sharma P, Arjyal L, Uprety D. YouTube as a Source of Information on Cervical Cancer. N Am J Med Sci 2016;8:183-18