Advertisement

Evaluation of the Reliability, Utility, and Quality of the Information in Sleeve Gastrectomy Videos Shared on Open Access Video Sharing Platform YouTube

  • Murat Ferhat FerhatogluEmail author
  • Abdulcabbar Kartal
  • Ugur Ekici
  • Alp Gurkan
Original Contributions
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The internet is a widely used source for obtaining medical information both by patients and physicians. YouTube® is a valuable information resource which can improve the learning experience of both public and medical professionals if appropriately used. In this study, we want to evaluate quality and accuracy of videos about sleeve gastrectomy procedure.

Methods

We included the first 100 videos returned by YouTube® search engine in response to “sleeve gastrectomy” keyword query to the study. The popularity of the videos was evaluated with an index called the video power index (VPI). Educational quality of videos was measured using the DISCERN score (DISCERN), Journal of American Medical Association (JAMAS) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Scores (GQS). The technical quality was measured by Sleeve Gastrectomy Scoring System (SGSS) which was utilized by three bariatric surgeons.

Results

The source in 31% of the videos was a patient. The content in 53% of the videos was surgical technique. According to sources, videos uploaded by a university-affiliated physician had significantly higher DISCERN, JAMAS, GQS, and SGSS scores. Videos uploaded by a university-affiliated physician also had lower video power index than videos uploaded by patients. Surgical technique videos had significantly higher DISCERN, JAMAS, GQS, and SGSS scores. Patient experiences and advertisement videos had higher VPI scores. Also, negative correlations were found between video power index and JAMAS, GQS, and SGSS scores.

Conclusions

Online information on sleeve gastrectomy is of low quality, and its contents are of unknown source and accuracy. However, educational potential of YouTube® cannot be ignored.

Keywords

Obesity Information Internet YouTube Sleeve gastrectomy Public education Patient education Quality Video Continuing surgical education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors of this manuscript would like to thank Associated Professor H. Yener Erken, M.D. for his expert advice in this project.

Authors’ Contributions

MFF collected the information, reviewed the literature, and wrote the manuscript. AK and UE collected the information. AG critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final form. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

There is no funding related to this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval Statement

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent Statement

Does not apply.

References

  1. 1.
    Web 2.0 [Internet]. San Francisco (CA): Wikimedia Foundation Inc.; [c2015] [cited 2014 Apr 3]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0.
  2. 2.
    Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, et al. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology. 2011;77:558–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bassett MT, Perl S. Obesity: the public health challenge of our time. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hurt RT, Kulisek C, Buchanan LA, et al. The obesity epidemic: challenges, health initiatives, and implications for gastroenterologists. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2010;6:780–92.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peterli R, Wölnerhanssen BK, Peters T, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity: the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:255–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Gebhart A, et al. Changes in the makeup of bariatric surgery: a national increase in use of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:252–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASMBS Clinical Issues Committee. Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8:21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Bariatric surgery and endoluminal procedures. IFSO worldwide survey 2014. Obes Surg. 2017;27:2279–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erdem MN, Karaca S. 2018. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in Kyphosis videos shared on YouTube Doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    DISCERN: quality criteria for consumer health information. http://www.discern.org.uk/. Accessed October 30, 2012.
  12. 12.
    Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, et al. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2070–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:1244–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al. AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults. Circulation. 2013;129:102–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim J, Azagury D, Eisenberg D, et al. ASMBS position statement on prevention, detection, and treatment of gastrointestinal leak after gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, including the roles of imaging, surgical exploration, and nonoperative management. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11:739–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, et al. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013;8:82469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hungerford DS. Internet access produces misinformed patients: managing the confusion. Orthopedics 2009;32.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sechrest RC. The internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2566–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altun H, Batman B, Uymaz SD, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy outcomes of 750 patients: a 2.5-year experience at a bariatric center of excellence. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nason GJ, Baker JF, Byrne DP, et al. Scoliosis-specific information on the internet: has the “information highway” led to better information provision? Spine. 2012;37:1364–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G, Wilson K. YouTube as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. JAMA 2007; 298: 2482–4Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, et al. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21:173–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pathak R, Poudel DR, Karmacharya P, et al. YouTube as a source of information on Ebola virus disease. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7:306–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Erdem H, Sislik A. The reliability of bariatric surgery videos in YouTube platform. Obes Surg. 2018;28:712–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akgun T, Karabay CY, Kocabay G, et al. Learning electrocardiogram on YouTube: how useful is it? J Electrocardiol. 2014;47:113–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, et al. YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scand J Urol. 2015;49:189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, et al. Online curves: a quality analysis of scoliosis videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1857–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brooks FM, Lawrence H, Jones A, et al. YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96:144–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, et al. Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2013;19:373–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garg N, Venkatraman A, Pandey A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2015;20:315–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacLeod MG, Hoppe DJ, Simunovic N, et al. YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:645–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murugiah K, Vallakati A, Rajput K, et al. (2011) YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011;82:332–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. CyberPsychol Behav. 2004;7:497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Department of General SurgeryOkan UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Istanbul Gelisim University Health Sciences CollegesIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations