Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Intragastric Balloon Videos on YouTube

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

There is no mechanism to control the accuracy and quality of videos on YouTube. However, it is essential to evaluate the quality of videos on YouTube to prevent patients from accessing misleading information. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and reliability of the videos available on YouTube concerning intragastric balloon.

Materials and Methods

YouTube was searched using the keywords “intragastric balloon” and “gastric balloon.” A total of 158 videos were independently analyzed by two bariatric surgeons—endoscopists and were classified as reliable or non-reliable. Video demographics (view, view per day, like, dislike, comment) were analyzed according to the quality and source of the video. The video power index (VPI) was calculated for each video. The modified DISCERN and global quality scores (GQS) were used to rate the reliability and overall quality of the videos.

Results

Of the included videos, 63.9% were described reliable and 36.1% as non-reliable. The median number of dislikes, comments, views, views per day, and video duration on YouTube did not significantly differ between the two reliability groups. The mean length of the videos, GQS and DISCERN scores, and the median number of likes were significantly higher in the reliable group. The highest median VPI value was determined for the videos uploaded by TV programs.

Conclusion

The number of reliable videos is higher than non-reliable about intragastric balloon on YouTube. However, the reliability and quality of the videos are generally low. The videos uploaded by TV programs are significantly more popular.

Graphical abstract

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. Samuel GO, Lambert K, Asagbra E, Harvin G, Ibegbu E. Impact of intragastric balloon on blood pressure reduction: a retrospective study in Eastern North Carolina. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;13(5):115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al. AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014. 2013;63(25):2985–3023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Saunders KH, Igel LI, Saumoy M, et al. Devices and endoscopic bariatric therapies for obesity. Curr Obes Rep. 2018;7(2):162–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mathus-Vliegen E, Spångeus A, Walter S, et al. Weight loss with or without intragastric balloon causes divergent effects on ghrelin cell expression. Obes Sci Pract. 2021;7(2):199–207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Neto MG, Silva LB, Grecco E, et al. Brazilian Intragastric Balloon Consensus Statement (BIBC): practical guidelines based on experience of over 40,000 cases. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases. 2018;14(2):151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(14):1727–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moran M, Oliver C. Content and design of patient-targeted websites in orthopaedic surgery: the example of total hip replacement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(8):773–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tolu S, Yurdakul OV, Basaran B. English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38(7):1285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O Zengin ME Onder. Educational quality of YouTube videos on musculoskeletal ultrasound. Clinical Rheumatology. 2021:1–9.

  10. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16(11):1734–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Adhikari J, Sharma P, Arjyal L, et al. YouTube as a source of information on cervical cancer. N Am J Med Sci. 2016;8(4):183.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Esen E, Aslan M, Sonbahar BÇ, et al. YouTube English videos as a source of information on breast self-examination. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(3):629–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. iProspect. iProspect search engine user behavior study. University of Florida Gainesville, FL; 2006.

  15. Megaly M, Khalil C, Tadros B, Tawadros M. Evaluation of educational value of YouTube videos for patients with coeliac disease. Int J Celiac Dis. 2016;4:102–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wong K, Doong J, Trang T, et al. YouTube videos on botulinum toxin A for wrinkles: a useful resource for patient education. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43(12):1466–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. M Krakowiak T Szmuda J Fercho S Ali Z Maliszewska P Słoniewski YouTube as a source of information for arteriovenous malformations: a content‐quality and optimization analysis. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2021:106723.

  18. Garg N, Venkatraman A, Pandey A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology. 2015;20(5):315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li HO-Y, Bailey A, Huynh D, et al. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation? BMJ global health. 2020;5(5):e002604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. ReFaey K, Tripathi S, Yoon JW, et al. The reliability of YouTube videos in patients education for glioblastoma treatment. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;55:1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nour MM, Nour MH, Tsatalou O-M, et al. Schizophrenia on YouTube. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(1):70–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bora K, Das D, Barman B, et al. Are internet videos useful sources of information during global public health emergencies? A case study of YouTube videos during the 2015–16 Zika virus pandemic. Pathogens and global health. 2018;112(6):320–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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(7):306.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR medical education. 2018;4(1):e3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Basch CH, Hillyer GC, MacDonald ZL, et al. Characteristics of YouTube™ videos related to mammography. J Cancer Educ. 2015;30(4):699–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. MB Duran Y Kizilkan. Quality analysis of testicular cancer videos on YouTube. Andrologia. 2021:e14118.

  27. Toolabi K, Parsaei R, Elyasinia F, et al. Reliability and educational value of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy surgery videos on YouTube. Obes Surg. 2019;29(9):2806–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Basim P, Argun D. A qualitative analysis of ostomy-related patient education videos on YouTube. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34(6):314–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Erdem H, Sisik A. The reliability of bariatric surgery videos in YouTube platform. Obes Surg. 2018;28(3):712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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(5):1477–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Biggs T, Bird J, Harries P, et al. YouTube as a source of information on rhinosinusitis: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Laryngol Otol. 2013;127(8):749–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, Konya, 42075, Turkey

    Akin Calisir & Ilhan Ece

Authors
  1. Akin Calisir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilhan Ece
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akin Calisir.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent does not apply.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Key Points

There are both reliable and non-reliable videos about intragastric balloon on YouTube.

The accuracy and quality of the videos about intragastric balloon are generally low.

People are watching both reliable and non-reliable videos about intragastric balloon at similar rates.

The popularity of the videos uploaded by TV programs are significantly higher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calisir, A., Ece, I. Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Intragastric Balloon Videos on YouTube. OBES SURG 32, 1157–1163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-05911-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-022-05911-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation