Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Quality of Open-Access Video-Based Orthopaedic Instructional Content for the Shoulder Physical Exam is Inconsistent

  • Original Article
  • Published:
HSS Journal ®

Abstract

Background

The internet has an increasing role in both patient and physician education. While several recent studies critically appraised the quality and accuracy of web-based written information available to patients, no studies have evaluated such parameters for open-access video content designed for provider use.

Questions/Purposes

The primary goal of the study was to determine the accuracy of internet-based instructional videos featuring the shoulder physical examination.

Methods

An assessment of quality and accuracy of said video content was performed using the basic shoulder examination as a surrogate for the “best-case scenario” due to its widely accepted components that are stable over time. Three search terms (“shoulder,” “examination,” and “shoulder exam”) were entered into the four online video resources most commonly accessed by orthopaedic surgery residents (VuMedi, G9MD, Orthobullets, and YouTube). Videos were captured and independently reviewed by three orthopaedic surgeons. Quality and accuracy were assessed in accordance with previously published standards.

Results

Of the 39 video tutorials reviewed, 61% were rated as fair or poor. Specific maneuvers such as the Hawkins test, O’Brien sign, and Neer impingement test were accurately demonstrated in 50, 36, and 27% of videos, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (mean kappa 0.80, range 0.79–0.81).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that information presented in open-access video tutorials featuring the physical examination of the shoulder is inconsistent. Trainee exposure to such potentially inaccurate information may have a significant impact on trainee education.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akgun T, Karabay CY, Kocabay G, et al. Learning electrocardiogram on YouTube: how useful is it? J Electrocardiol. 2014; 47(1): 113-117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aslam N, Bowyer D, Wainwright A, et al. Evaluation of Internet use by paediatric orthopaedic outpatients and the quality of information available. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2005; 14(2): 129-133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Azer SA. Understanding pharmacokinetics: are YouTube videos a useful learning resource? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014; 18(13): 1957-1967.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Azer SA, Aleshaiwi SM, Algrain HA, et al. Nervous system examination on YouTube. BMC Med Educ. 2012; 12: 126-6920. 12-126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Azer SA, Algrain HA, AlKhelaif RA, et al. Evaluation of the educational value of YouTube videos about physical examination of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(11): e241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Beredjiklian PK, Bozentka DJ, Steinberg DR, et al. Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedic information on the Internet. The case of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82-A(11): 1540-1543.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, et al. Pediatric surgery on YouTube: is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg. 2014; 49(4): 586-589.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brna PM, Dooley JM, Esser MJ, et al. Are YouTube seizure videos misleading? Neurologists do not always agree. Epilepsy Behav. 2013; 29(2): 305-307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burton A. YouTube-ing your way to neurological knowledge. Lancet Neurol. 2008; 7(12): 1086-1087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Camm CF, Sunderland N, Camm AJ. A quality assessment of cardiac auscultation material on YouTube. Clin Cardiol. 2013; 36(2): 77-81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Clough JF, Abdelmaksoud MA, Kamstra PE, et al. Current concepts review. Internet resources for orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(2): 288-289.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, et al. The effect of search term on the quality and accuracy of online information regarding distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2012; 37(9): 1881-1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, et al. Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used? Hand. 2012; 7(4): 420-425.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Fabricant PD, Dy CJ, Patel RM, et al. Internet search term affects the quality and accuracy of online information about developmental hip dysplasia. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013; 33(4): 361-365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fat MJ, Doja A, Barrowman N, et al. YouTube videos as a teaching tool and patient resource for infantile spasms. J Child Neurol. 2011; 26(7): 804-809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, et al. Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2013; 19(7): 373-376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Garcia GH, Taylor SA, Dy CJ, et al. Online resources for shoulder instability: what are patients reading? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(20): e177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1): 159-174.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Logan R. Using YouTube in perioperative nursing education. AORN J. 2012; 95(4): 474-481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, et al. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(23): 2695-2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, et al. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. Spine J. 2010; 10(4): 350-354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Muhammed L, Adcock JE, Sen A. YouTube as a potential learning tool to help distinguish tonic-clonic seizures from nonepileptic attacks. Epilepsy Behav. 2014; 37: 221-226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Murugiah K, Vallakati A, Rajput K, et al. YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011; 82(3): 332-334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Raikos A, Waidyasekara P. How useful is YouTube in learning heart anatomy? Anat Sci Educ. 2014; 7(1): 12-18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharoff L. Integrating YouTube into the nursing curriculum. Online J Issues Nurs. 2011; 16(3): 6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005; 85(3): 257-268.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sinkov VA, Andres BM, Wheeless CR, et al. Internet-based learning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 421(421): 99-106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sunderland N, Camm CF, Glover K, et al. A quality assessment of respiratory auscultation material on YouTube. Clin Med. 2014; 14(4): 391-395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Ekaterina Urch MD, Samuel A. Taylor MD, Elizabeth Cody MD, Peter D. Fabricant MD, MPH, Jayme C. Burket PhD, Stephen J. O’Brien MD, MBA, David M. Dines MD & Joshua S. Dines MD

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Urch MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel A. Taylor MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Cody MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter D. Fabricant MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jayme C. Burket PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephen J. O’Brien MD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David M. Dines MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joshua S. Dines MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekaterina Urch MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ekaterina Urch, MD; Samuel A. Taylor, MD; Elizabeth Cody, MD; Peter D. Fabricant, MD, MPH; Jayme C. Burket, PhD; and Stephen J. O’Brien, MD, MBA have declared that they have nothing to disclose. David Dines, MD, reports personal fees from Biomet, outside the work. Joshua S. Dines, MD, reports personal fees from Conmed and Arthrex, outside the work.

Human/Animal Rights

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

Informed Consent

N/A

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Additional information

Work performed at Hospital for Special Surgery

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 4

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 5

(PDF 1.19 mb)

ESM 6

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 7

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 8

(PDF 1224 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Urch, E., Taylor, S.A., Cody, E. et al. The Quality of Open-Access Video-Based Orthopaedic Instructional Content for the Shoulder Physical Exam is Inconsistent. HSS Jrnl 12, 209–215 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-016-9508-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-016-9508-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation