Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 11, pp 3472–3477 | Cite as

Comparison of New Era’s Education Platforms, YouTube® and WebSurg®, in Sleeve Gastrectomy

  • Murat Ferhat FerhatogluEmail author
  • Abdulcabbar Kartal
  • Ali İlker Filiz
  • Abut Kebudi
Original Contributions
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The Internet is a widely used resource for obtaining medical information. However, the quality of information on online platforms is still debated. Our goal in this quality-controlled WebSurg® and YouTube®–based study was to compare these two online video platforms in terms of the accuracy and quality of information about sleeve gastrectomy videos.

Methods

Most viewed (popular) videos returned by YouTube® search engine in response to the keyword “sleeve gastrectomy” were included in the study. The educational accuracy and quality of the videos were evaluated according to known scoring systems. A novel scoring system measured technical quality. The ten most viewed (popular) videos in WebSurg® in response to the keyword “sleeve gastrectomy” were compared with ten YouTube® videos with the highest educational/technical scores.

Results

Scoring systems measuring the educational accuracy and quality of WebSurg® videos were significantly higher than ten YouTube® videos which have the most top technical scores (p < 0.05), and no significant difference was found in the assessment of ten YouTube® videos that have the highest technical ratings compared with WebSurg® videos (p 0.481).

Conclusions

WebSurg® videos, which were passed through a reviewing process and were mostly prepared by academicians, remained below the expected quality. The main limitation of WebSurg® and YouTube® is the lack of information on preoperative and postoperative processes.

Keywords

Internet YouTube WebSurg Sleeve gastrectomy Continuing surgical education 

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

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

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Schmidt RS, Shi LL, Sethna A. Use of streaming media (YouTube®) as an educational tool for surgeons—a survey of AAFPRS members. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18:230–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.
  3. 3.
    Snelson C. YouTube across the disciplines: a review of the literature. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 2011;7:159–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Rapp AK, Healy MG, Charlton ME, et al. YouTube is the most frequently used educational video source for surgical preparation. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:1072–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Mutter D, Vix M, Dallemange B, et al. WebSurg: an innovative educational Web site in minimally invasive surgery—principles and results. Surg Innov. 2011;18:8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    ASMBS Clinical Issues Committee. Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8:21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Barry DS, Marzouk F, Chulak-Oglu K, et al. Anatomy education for the YouTube® generation. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:90–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube®. Doi:  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DISCERN: Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information. http://www.discern.org.uk/. Accessed 30 Oct 2012.
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, et al. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of the information in sleeve gastrectomy videos shared on open access video sharing platform YouTube. Obes Surg. 2019;29:1477–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-03738-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults. Circulation. 2013;129:102–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G, et al. YouTube® as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. JAMA. 2007;298:2482–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Erdem H, Sislik A. The reliability of bariatric surgery videos in YouTube platform. Obes Surg. 2018;28:712–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akgun T, Karabay CY, Kocabay G, et al. Learning electrocardiogram on YouTube: how useful is it? J Electrocardiol. 2014;47:113–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Basch CH, Zybert P, Reeves R, et al. What do popular YouTube videos say about vaccines? Child Care Health Dev. 2017;43:499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hayanga AJ, Kaiser HE. Medical information on YouTube®TM. JAMA. 2008;299:1424–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DT, et al. Pediatric surgery on YouTube®TM: is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49:586–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH. YouTube® as a potential training method for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015;89:92–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sorensen JA, Pusz MD, Brietzke SE. YouTube® as an information source for pediatric adenotonsillectomy and ear tube surgery. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH. YouTube® as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:4066–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adorisio O, Silveri M, Peppo F, et al. YouTube® and pediatric surgery. What is the danger for parents? Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2015;25:203–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sahin AN, Sahin AS, Schwenter F, et al. YouTube® videos as a source of information on colorectal cancer: what do our patients learn? J Cancer Educ. 2018;21:1422–9.Google 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

Personalised recommendations