Quality of YouTube video resources on total knee arthroplasty: a search in Turkish

Abstract

Objectives: We aim was to evaluate the quality and reliability of the information on knee arthroplasty available on YouTube in Turkish.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the term “diz protezi” (knee prosthesis) on 1 June 2020.Videos were filtered based on their degree of relevance alone. Videos that were not in Turkish, not on knee prosthesis or without audio and/or image were excluded. Copied videos were evaluated as a single video. The first 50 videos that came up in the search were included in the study. Video quality was scored using Global Quality Score (GQS). To assess reliability, modified DISCERN scale was used.

Results: The mean view count per video was 31.533 ± 100.921 and the total view count was 1.576.633. The mean duration per video was 337 ± 475 seconds. The median number of likes per video was 13 (0-426). The median number of dislikes per video was 2.5 (0-83). The mean GQS of the videos was 3.25 ± 0.9. When the reliability of the sources was evaluated using DISCERN, the mean score of the videos was 2.18 ± 1.2. It is striking that all videos were prepared by an orthopedic surgeon. Of the medical doctors preparing the resources, 44% had academic titles.

Conclusions: It was found that Turkish resources on arthroplasty on YouTube are promising in terms of quality. Content creators must make effort to increase their reliability according to DISCERN.

Keywords

• Knee
• Arthroplasty
• Patient Education
• Social Media

References

1. 1. TC Sağlık Bakanlığı Refik Saydam Hıfzıssıhha Merkezi Başkanlığı HMM. Türkiye Hastalık Yükü Çalışması 2004. (Ünüvar N, Mollahaliloğlu S, Yardım N, ed.). Ankara, Türkiye: Aydoğdu Ofset Matbaacılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti Matbaası; 2007.
2. 2. Bodur H. Current review on osteoarthritis in Turkey and the world; epidemiology and socioeconomic aspect. Turk Geriatr Derg 2011;14:7-14.
3. 3. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: Who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:57-63.
4. 4. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;(452):35–43. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000238825.63648.1e
5. 5. Mancuso CA, Sculco TP, Wickiewicz TL, Jones EC, Robbins L, Warren RF, et al. Patients’ expectations of knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:1005-12.
6. 6. Cassidy JT, Baker JF. Orthopaedic patient information on the world wide web: an essential review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:325-38.
7. 7. Wong M, Desai B, Bautista M, Kwon O, Kolodychuk N, Chimento G. YouTube is a poor source of patient information for knee arthroplasty and knee osteoarthritis. Arthroplast Today 2019;5:78-82.
8. 8. Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz KD, Windhager R. YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. Int Orthop 2016;40:1995-2002.

9. 9. Google Trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=TR-06&q=diz protezi, diz artroplasti, diz kireçlenmesi. Accessed April 1, 2020.
10. 10. Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G. A quality analysis of disc herniation videos on YouTube. World Neurosurg 2019;124:e799-e804.
11. 11. Drozd B, Couvillion E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation : literature review. JIMR Med Educ 2018;4:e3.
12. 12. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the world wide web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2070-7.
13. 13. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105-11.
14. 14. Bennett KG, Berlin NL, MacEachern MP, Buchman SR, Preminger BA, Vercler CJ. The ethical and professional use of social media in surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;142:388E-98E.
15. 15. Internet World Stats. https://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/tr.htm. Accessed April 1, 2020.
16. 16. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015;21:173-94.
17. 17. Arazi M. [Social media use in orthopedics and traumatology]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2014;48:I-IV. [Article in Turkish]
18. 18. Arazi M, Yaman H, Heybeli N. [A survey study on “Turk-Orthopod”, a Turkish electronic discussion group in orthopedics and traumatology]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2004;38:277-81. [Article in Turkish]
19. 19. Akpolat AO, Kurdal DP. Is quality of YouTube content on Bankart lesion and its surgical treatment adequate? J Orthop Surg Res 2020;15:78.
20. 20. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: naional U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003;5:e17.
21. 21. Sculco PK, McLawhorn AS, Fehring KA, De Martino I. The future of social media in orthopedic surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2017;10:278-9.