Open AccessLooking for cystoscopy on YouTube: Are videos a reliable information tool for internet users?
Author(s) -
Carmine Turco,
Claudia Collà Ruvolo,
Simone Cilio,
Giuseppe Celentano,
Gianluigi Califano,
Massimiliano Creta,
Marco Capece,
Roberto La Rocca,
Luigi Napolitano,
Francesco Mangiapia,
Lorenzo Spirito,
Simone Morra,
Alberto Melchionna,
Ferdinando Fusco,
Vincenzo Mirone,
Nicola Longo
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
archivio italiano di urologia andrologia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.429
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 2282-4197
pISSN - 1124-3562
DOI - 10.4081/aiua.2022.1.57
Subject(s) - misinformation , cystoscopy , the internet , upload , quality score , quality (philosophy) , computer science , social media , internet privacy , medicine , multimedia , world wide web , business , computer security , metric (unit) , philosophy , urinary system , epistemology , marketing
Objective: The Internet is an important and easily accessible source of information. The aim of the current study was to investigate the quality of YouTube videos on cystoscopy and to establish if they can be used as a reliable information tool for internet users. Materials and methods: The search term “cystoscopy” was used on YouTube platform and the first 120 YouTube videos were analyzed. To assess the video quality Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audiovisual (A/V) Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections), Misinformation score and Global Quality Score (GQS) were used. Results: Of all 120 videos, 72 were included in the analyses. Of all videos, 59.7% (n = 43), and 40.3% (n = 29) were targeted to General Public and Healthcare Workers. Moreover, “technical aspects” was the main topic addressed (n = 29, 40.3%). The median PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 50.0% (IQR: 39.1-70.0) and 66.7% (IQR: 33.3- 100.0), respectively. The median Misinformation score ranged from 1.0 to 3.0. According to GQS, 22 (30.6%), 26 (36.1%), 16 (22.2%), 8 (11.1%) videos were poor, generally poor, moderate, and good, respectively. No video was evaluated as excellent. Conclusions: Today, YouTube videos on cystoscopy are more frequently uploaded by healthcare workers, who share information about specific aspects of this procedure. However, the quality of YouTube contents on cystoscopy is still poor. Therefore, currently users interested in cystoscopy cannot rely on YouTube to get good informative material on this topic. In consequence, future authors should focus on improving the quality of video contents on cystoscopy