KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ahi Evran Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: 2

Maküler Hol Cerrahisiyle İlgili YouTube Videolarının Kaynak Olarak Yararlılığının Değerlendirilmesi

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Youtube Videos as Sources Related to Macular Hole Surgery

Murat Serkan Songur(YOZGAT BOZOK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6234-3680
Mehmet Çıtırık(SBÜ ULUCANLAR GÖZ EĞİTİM VE ARAŞTIRMA HASTANESİ)0000-0002-0558-5576
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2022-08-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular: Değerlendirilen videoların DISCERN skoru 34.5±7.6; JAMA skoru 1.6±0.6; GQ skorlaması ise 2.2±0.5 idi.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç: Maküler hol cerrahisiyle ilgili YouTube videolarının kaynak olarak yararlılığını değerlendirmek.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araçlar ve Yöntem: YouTube arama motorunda ‘macular hole surgery’ yazarak taratıldığında, ilk çıkan 100 video değerlendirildi.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: Değerlendirilen videoların DISCERN skoru 34.5±7.6; JAMA skoru 1.6±0.6; GQ skorlaması ise 2.2±0.5 idi.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:DISCERN score · Global Quality score · JAMA score

Özet

Amaç: Maküler hol cerrahisiyle ilgili YouTube videolarının kaynak olarak yararlılığını değerlendirmek. Araçlar ve Yöntem: YouTube arama motorunda ‘macular hole surgery’ yazarak taratıldığında, ilk çıkan 100 video değerlendirildi. Bu videolar ayrıca, DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) ve Global Quality (GQ) skorlama sistemleri ile analiz edilerek skorlandı. Bulgular: Değerlendirilen videoların DISCERN skoru 34.5±7.6; JAMA skoru 1.6±0.6; GQ skorlaması ise 2.2±0.5 idi. Sonuçlara göre maküler hol videoları, DISCERN skoru zayıf; JAMA skoru düşük kalite ve GQ skorlamasında ise zayıf kaliteye sahip olarak değerlendirildi. Sonuç: Maküler hol cerrahisi ile YouTube da yeterince video bulunmasına rağmen, kaynak olarak yararlılığı düşük ve kalitesi zayıftır.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of YouTube videos about macular hole surgery as a resource. Materials and Methods: The first 100 videos were evaluated when they were scanned by typing "macular hole surgery" in the YouTube search engine. These videos were also analyzed and scored using DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and Global Quality (GQ) scoring systems. Results: The DISCERN score of the evaluated videos was 34.5±7.6, JAMA score was 1.6±0.6, and The GQ score was 2.2±0.5. According to the results, macular hole videos’ DISCERN score was weak, their JAMA score was evaluated as low quality and GQ score was in poor quality. Conclusion: Although there are sufficient number of videos on YouTube on macular hole surgery, their usefulness as a resource is low and their quality is poor.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Songur, M. S., Çıtırık, M. (2022). Maküler Hol Cerrahisiyle İlgili YouTube Videolarının Kaynak Olarak Yararlılığının Değerlendirilmesi. Ahi Evran Tıp Dergisi, Volume: 6 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.46332/aemj.948909

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (26)

  1. Takahashi A, Yoshida A, Nagaoka T ve ark. Idiopathic full-thickness macular holes and the vitreomacular interface: a high-resolution spectral-domain optical coherence tomography study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(5):881-892.
  2. Haouchine B, Massin P, Gaudric A. Foveal pseudocyst as the first step in macular hole formation: a prospective study by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(1):15-22.
  3. Johnson MW. Posterior vitreous detachment: evolution and complications of its early stages.” Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(3):371-382.
  4. Kiernan DF, Mieler WF, Hariprasad SM. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: a comparison of modern high-resolution retinal imaging systems. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(1):18-31.
  5. Krishnan R, Tossounis C, Fung Yang Y. 20-gauge and 23-gauge phacovitrectomy for idiopathic macular holes: comparison of complications and long-term outcomes. Eye. 2013;27(1):72-77.
  6. Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient-information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016;49(12):1194-1200.
  7. YouTube at five- 2 bn views a day. London, 2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8676380.stm. Accesed: 17 Mayıs, 2010.
  8. Ayeni OR, Chan K, Al-Asiri J ve ark. Sources and quality of literature addressing femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(2):415-419.
  9. Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(12):e82469.
  10. 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(2):105-111.
  11. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis d a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903.
  12. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-1245.
  13. Weil AG, Bojanowski MW, Jamart J, Gustin T, Lévêque M. Evaluation of the quality of information on the Internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1-2):31-39.
  14. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine. 2018;43(22):1334-1339.
  15. Rössler B, Lahner D, Schebesta K, Chiari A, Plöchl W. Medical information on the Internet: quality assessment of lumbar puncture and neuroaxial block techniques on YouTube. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(6):655-658.
  16. Antheunis ML, Tates K, Nieboer TE. Patients’ and health professionals’ use of social media in health care: motives, barriers and expectations. Patient Educ Couns 2013 Sep;92(3):426–431.
  17. Guthrie G, Davies RM, Fleming CK, Browning AC. YouTube as a source of information about retinitis pigmentosa. Eye. 2014;28(4):499-500.
  18. Borgersen NJ, Henriksen MJV, Konge L, Sørensen TL, Thomsen ASS, Subhi Y. Direct ophthalmoscopy on YouTube: analysis of instructional YouTube videos’ content and approach to visualization. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1535-1541.
  19. Bae SS, Baxter S. YouTube videos in the English language as a patient education resource for cataract surgery. Int Ophthal. 2018;38(5):1941-1945.
  20. Şahin A, Şahin M, Türkcü FM. YouTube as a source of information in retinopathy of prematurity. Ir J Med Sci. 2019;188(2):613-617.
  21. Abdelmseih M. Evaluation and reliability of YouTube videos for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)-A warning sign. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016;7(5):595.
  22. Aykut A, Kukner AS, Karasu B, Palancıglu Y, Atmaca F, Aydogan T. Everything is ok on YouTube! Quality assessment of YouTube videos on the topic of phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(2):385-391.
  23. Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(4):e10271.
  24. Kuçuk B, Sirakaya E. An analysis of YouTube videos as educational resources for patients about refractive surgery. Cornea. 2020;39(4):491-494.
  25. Altunel O, Sirakaya E. Evaluation of YouTube videos as sources of information about multifocal intraocular lens. Semin. Ophthalmol. 2021;3(5-6):1-5.
  26. Mangan MS, Cakir A, Yurttaser Ocak S, Tekcan H, Balci S, Ozcelik Kose A. Analysis of the quality, reliability, and popularity of information on strabismus on YouTube. Strabismus. 2020:28(4):175-180.