Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

YouTube™ as a source of information on extraction of third molars

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and aim

Healthcare information is becoming more readily available and searched for online, particularly on websites such as YouTube™. The accuracy and content of these websites is often questionable. We aimed to evaluate the quality of information available on surgical extraction of wisdom teeth on YouTube™.

Materials and methods

We searched for the terms ‘wisdom teeth’, ‘third molar’, and ‘wisdom tooth extraction’ on YouTube™. The first 3 pages of results for each search term were assessed for inclusion and were independently rated by two assessors. Three separate scales to rate the quality of online information were used—DICSERN (range 0–5), HONcode (range 0–8) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS)(range 1-5). Cohen’s kappa test was used to assess inter-rater reliability.

Results

The searches returned 179 videos, but 114 were excluded (37 duplicates, 3 unrelated, 57 non-surgical, 13 <10k views, 4 non-English). Of the 65 videos included, the average length was 6 minutes and 34 seconds, and the average percentage positivity was 89%. The mean DISCERN score was 1.47 (SD 1.13), and the mean score for GQS was 2.15 (SD 0.6). No video met all HONcode criteria with the mean score being 2.96 (SD 0.9). There was good inter-rater reliability for the DISCERN score (kappa= 0.744) and HONcode score (kappa =0.866) but less reliability for GQS (kappa = 0.204).

Conclusion

The standard of information on YouTube™ on surgical extraction of wisdom teeth varies, but is of poor quality overall. Patients should be advised to be cautious of such sources for information on this topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bishara SE, Andreasen G (1983) Third molars: a review. Am J Orthod 83(2):131–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dachi SF, Howell FV (1961) A survey of 3,874 routine full-mouth radiographs: II. A study of impacted teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 14(10):1165–1169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C (2014) Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield? Can Fam Physician 60(5):407–408

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hanna K, Brennan D, Sambrook P, Armfield J (2015) Third molars on the Internet: a guide for assessing information quality and readability. Interact J Med Res 4(4):e19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. The Office for National Statistics. Internet access – households and individuals, Great Britain: 2018. (Internet) (7th August 2018, accessed 1st March 2019) Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2018

  6. Giustini D (2006) How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. BMJ 333:1283–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hosting Facts. Internet Statistics for 2019. (Internet) (Updated 17th December 2018, accessed 21st March 2019) Available from: https://hostingfacts.com/internet-facts-stats/

  8. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP (2012) YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 39(5):899–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, Cleary M, Byrne DP, Devitt BM, Baker JF (2018) YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(3):840–845

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jansen B, Spink A.: An analysis of web documents retrieved and viewed. In: The 9th International Conference on Internet Computing. Las Vegas, Nevada, June 2003 Accessed 7 May 2016. Available from https://faculty.ist.psu.edu/jjansen/academic/pubs/pages_viewed.pdf.

  11. Saraswat I, Abouassaly R, Dwyer P, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N (2016) Female urinary incontinence health information quality on the Internet: a multilingual evaluation. Int Urogynecol J 27(1):69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. LLawrentschuk N, Sasges D, Tasevski R, Abouassaly R, Scott AM, Davis ID (2012) Oncology health information quality on the Internet: a multilingual evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol 19(3):706–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):105–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28(5):603–610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. The Health on the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites (HONcode) [Internet]. [cited 22nd February 2019]. Available from: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/

  16. Pant S, Deshmukh A, Murugiah K, Kumar G, Sachdeva R, Mehta JL (2012) Assessing the credibility of the “YouTube approach” to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 35(5):281–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grohol JM, Slimowicz J, Granda R (2014) The quality of mental health information commonly searched for on the Internet. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 17(4):216–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Van Zanten SV (2007) A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 102(9):2070–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. BBC News. One billion hits a day on YouTube. [Internet. Accessed January 26, 2012.] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299951.stm

  20. Alltechnology news. YouTube 2 billion videos viewed every day. [Internet. Accessed January 26, 2012.] Available from: http://www.alltechnologynews.com/ youtube-2-billion-videos-viewed-every-day.html

  21. AAldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT (2011) Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthodont 34(4):466–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C (2016) YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 22(3):202–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jayaratne YS, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA (2014) Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(12):1319–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, Burke MJ, Aslam A, Giri SK, Flood HD (2015) YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scandinavian J Urol 49(2):189–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK (2015) Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J 21(3):173–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Olsen BT, Sherwood CJ, Carrico CK, Priest JH, Laskin DM (2017) Patient recall of information on a third molar informed consent video. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75(12):2507–2511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tanidir AN, Atac MS, Karacelebi E (2016) Informatıon given by multımedıa: influence on anxıety about extractıon of impacted wısdom teeth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54(6):652–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Laskin DM, Priest JH, Alfaqih S, Carrico CK (2018) Does viewing a third molar informed consent video decrease patients' anxiety? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 76(12):2515–2517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Elhassan Y, Sheridan G, Nassiri M, Osman M, Kiely P, Noel J (2015) Discectomy-related information on the internet: does the quality follow the surge? Spine. 40(2):121–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Rd, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK

    Sofia Kidy, David M. McGoldrick & Peter Stockton

Authors
  1. Sofia Kidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. McGoldrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Stockton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sofia Kidy, David McGoldrick and Peter Stockton. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sofia Kidy, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofia Kidy.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kidy, S., McGoldrick, D.M. & Stockton, P. YouTube™ as a source of information on extraction of third molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg 25, 519–524 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00941-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00941-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation