Sosyal Medyadaki Perkütan Nefrolitotomi Ameliyatı Videoları Kaliteli Bilgi Sağlıyor mu?

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada YouTube'da yayınlanan perkütan nefrolitotomi (PCNL) cerrahisi videolarının kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Youtube arama motoruna perkütan nefrolitotomi anahtar kelimeleri girilerek arama yapıldı. Video kalitesi, Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAS), Global Quality Score (GQS) ve modifiye DISCERN skoru kullanılarak ölçüldü. İki ürolog, ameliyatın her aşaması için teknik kaliteyi değerlendirmek için PCNL Spesifik Skorunu (PCNLSS) geliştirdi. Video popülerliğini belirlemek için video güç indeksi (VPI) kullanıldı. Bulgular: Dahil edilme kriterlerine karşılayan 113 video çalışmaya dahil edildi. Medyan VPI, JAMAS, modifiye DISCERN, GQS ve PCNLSS skorları sırasıyla 3.01, 1, 2, 2 ve 4 idi. Sesli anlatıma sahip videoların VPI, JAMAS, modifiye DISCERN, GQS ve PCNLSS puanları anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (sırasıyla p=0,001, p<0,001, p<0,001, p<0,001, p<0,001). İngilizce altyazılı videolar altyazısız videolardan daha yüksek JAMAS, modifiye DISCERN, GQS ve PCNLSS puanlarına sahipti (sırasıyla p<0,001, p<0,001, p<0,001, p<0,001). Akademik videolar, ürologlar tarafından yayınlanan videolardan daha yüksek VPI, JAMAS, modifiye DISCERN, GQS ve PCNLSS puanlarına sahipti (sırasıyla p=0,004, p<0,001, p=0,001, p=0,001, p=0,006). Sonuç: Bu çalışma sosyal medyada yayınlanan PCNL videolarının kalitesinin yetersiz olduğu göstermiştir. Günümüzde sosyal medyanın bilgi kaynağı olarak sıklıkla kullanıldığı kabul edilmelidir. Bu nedenle sağlık profesyonelleri, hastaları daha doğru bilgilendirmek için sosyal medya üzerinden girişimlerde bulunmalıdır.

Keywords

• nefrolitiazis
• perkütan nefrolitotomi
• sosyal medya

Do The Videos on Social Media About Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Surgery Provide Quality Information?

Abstract

Aim: In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the quality of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) surgery videos published on YouTube. Material and Method: A search was made by entering the keywords ‘percutaneous nephrolithotomy' in the youtube search engine. Video quality was measured using the Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAS), Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN score. Two reviewers developed the PCNL Specific Score (PCNLSS) to estimate the technical quality for every stages of surgery. Video power index (VPI) was used to determine video popularity. Results: One hundred and thirteen videos had the inclusion criteria were counted in the study. The median VPI, JAMAS, modified DISCERN, GQS and PCNLSS scores were 3.01, 1, 2, 2 and 4, respectively. Videos with audio narration had significantly higher VPI, JAMAS, modified DISCERN, GQS and PCNLSS scores (p=0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001 respectively). Videos with english subtitle had higher JAMAS, modified DISCERN, GQS and PCNLSS scores than videos with no subtitle (p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001 respectively). Academical videos had higher VPI, JAMAS, modified DISCERN, GQS and PCNLSS scores than the videos published by urologists (p=0.004, p<0.001, p=0.001, p=0.001, p=0.006 respectively). Conclusion: In this study, it was seen that the quality of PCNL videos published on social media was insufficient. It should be accepted that social media is frequently used as a source of information today. For this reason, health care professionals should take initiatives through social media to inform patients more accurately.

Keywords

• nephrolithiasis
• percutaneous nephrolithotomy
• social media

References

1. Urolithiasis Guidelines, European Association of Urology, 2021 [Cited 5 May 2022] Available from https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis, 2021.
2. Kittanamongkolchai W, Vaughan LE, Enders FT, et al. The changing incidence and presentation of urinary stones over 3 decades. Mayo Clin Proc 2018;93:291-9.
3. Dwyer ME, Krambeck AE, Bergstralh EJ, Milliner DS, Lieske JC, Rule AD. Temporal trends in incidence of kidney stones among children: a 25-year population based study. J Urol 2012;188:247-52.
4. Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257-259.
5. World Internet Users Statistics and 2019 World Population Stats. [Cited 5 May 2022] Available from www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
6. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015;21:173-194.
7. Langford A, Loeb S. Perceived Patient-Provider Communication Quality and Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Watching Health-Related Videos on YouTube: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e13512.
8. Andika R, Kao CT, Williams C, Lee YJ, Al-Battah H, Alweis R. YouTube as a source of information on the COVID-19 pandemic. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect 2021;11:39-41.

9. Baran C, Yilmaz Baran S. Youtube videos as an information source about urinary incontinence. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021;50:102197.
10. Brachtenbach T, Cardenas R, Pate H, et al. YouTube: Searching for answers about breast cancer. Breast Dis 2020;39:85-90.
11. Tonyali S. YouTube: A good source for retrograde intrarenal surgery? Investig Clin Urol 2021;62:180-5.
12. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Information in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:1334-9.
13. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, 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.
14. Handler SJ, Eckhardt SE, Takashima Y, Jackson AM, Truong C, Yazdany T. Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J 2021;32:3249-58.
15. 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.
16. Selvi I, Baydilli N, Akinsal EC. Can YouTube English Videos Be Recommended as an Accurate Source for Learning About Testicular Self-examination?. Urology 2020;145:181-9.
17. Bae SS, Baxter S. YouTube videos in the English language as a patient education resource for cataract surgery. Int Ophthalmol 2018;38:1941-5.
18. Loeb S, Reines K, Abu-Salha Y, et al. Quality of Bladder Cancer Information on YouTube. Eur Urol 2021;79:56-9.
19. Radonjic A, Fat Hing NN, Harlock J, Naji F. YouTube as a source of patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2020;71:637-44.
20. Fialho I, Beringuilho M, Madeira D, et al. Acute myocardial infarction on YouTube - is it all fake news?. Rev Port Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2021;40:815-25.
21. Betschart P, Pratsinis M, Müllhaupt G, et al. Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading. BJU Int 2020;125:595-601.
22. Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004;7:497-510.