Prostat füzyon biyopsisi ile ilgili YouTube videolarındaki bilgilerin kalitesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, MRI-TRUS prostat füzyon biyopsisi ile ilgili YouTube’daki videoların kalitesini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 16 Mart 2022 tarihinde “MRI-TRUS prostat füzyon biyopsisi” başlığı ile YouTube taraması yapılmıştır. İlk 70 video, sıralama kriteri olarak “alaka düzeyi” seçilerek değerlendirildi. Video içeriklerinin kalitesi, uluslararası geçerliliği olan Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAS) ve Global Quality Score (GQS) kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Araştırmacı ayrıca videoların teknik içeriğini değerlendirmek için MRI-TRUS Prostat Füzyon Biyopsi Skorunu (MTPFBS) geliştirdi. Videoların yüklenme kaynağı ve uzunluğu, izlenme sayısı, beğeni ve beğenmeme oranları, video güç indeksleri (VPI) değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Akademik merkez kaynaklı hazırlanan video içerikleri, bilimsel toplantı veya özel kurum videolarına kıyasla anlamlı olarak daha yüksek GQS puanlarına sahipti. Özel kurum kaynakları tarafından hazırlanan video içeriklerinin MTPFBS ve JAMA puanları diğer videolara göre anlamlı derecede düşüktü (p<0.05). Bilgi aktarımı türüne göre hem sesli hem de yazılı olarak yüklenen videoların JAMAS ve MTPFBS’nin tek başına sesli videolara göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür (p<0.05). Videoların uzunluğu JAMA ve MTPFBS ile pozitif korelasyon gösterdi. VPI ve beğeni sayısı güçlü bir korelasyon gösterdi. VPI veya beğeni sayısı GQS, JAMAS ve MTPFBS puanları ile herhangi bir korelasyon göstermedi.
Sonuç: YouTube’daki MRI-TRUS prostat füzyon biyopsisi videolarının kalitesi belirgin düzeyde düşüktü. Uzman hekimler ve akademik merkezlerce hazırlanmış video içerikleri ile daha kaliteli bilgiler aktarılabilir. Bu nedenle güncel veriler sonucunda video içeriklerinin izlenmesi önerilmeyebilir.

Keywords

• MRI-TRUS
• Prostat füzyon biyopsi
• internet

Quality of information in YouTube videos on prostate fusion biopsy

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of videos on YouTube related to MRI-TRUS prostate fusion biopsy. 
Material and Methods: A YouTube search was made on March 16, 2022, for the videos related to “MRI-TRUS prostate fusion biopsy”. The first 70 videos were ranked during this study by choosing “relevance” as a criterion. Video content quality was evaluated using the internationally validated Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAS) and Global Quality Score (GQS). The researcher also developed MRI-TRUS Prostate Fusion Biopsy Scoring (MTPFBS) to evaluate videos’ technical content. The upload origin and length of video view count, like and dislike ratios, and video power indexes (VPI) were all evaluated. 
Results: Video contents prepared by academic center sources had significantly higher GQS scores than scientific meetings or private institution videos. Video contents prepared by private institution sources had significantly lower MTPFBS and JAMA scores than other videos (p<0.05). According to the type of information, videos uploaded with voice and writing had significantly higher JAMAS and MTPFBS than voice alone (p<0.05). Length of videos showed a positive correlation with JAMA and MTPFBS. VPI and the number of likes showed a strong correlation. However, VPI or the number of likes did not correlate with GQS, JAMAS, and MTPFBS scores. 
Conclusion: Evaluated on YouTube, the MRI-TRUS prostate fusion biopsy videos were of low quality. In that regard, videos prepared by the specialists and academic centers should be standardized to transfer better quality information. According to current data, it may not be recommended to watch these video contents.

Keywords

• MRI-TRUS
• Prostate Fusion Biopsy
• internet

References

1. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, et al. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. European urology. 2020;77(1):38-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005.
2. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. The Journal of urology. 2020;203(4):706-12. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617.
3. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. European urology. 2021;79(2):243-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.
4. Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, et al. Prostate Biopsy-related Infection: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors, Prevention Strategies, and Management Approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.011.
5. L.Ceci. YouTube - Statistics & Facts[internet]. https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/ - topicHeader__wrapper. Accessed March 26,2022. 2022.
6. Wangberg S, Andreassen H, Kummervold P, et al. Use of the internet for health purposes: trends in Norway 2000-2010. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009;23(4):691-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00662.x.
7. Bujnowska-Fedak MM. Trends in the use of the Internet for health purposes in Poland. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:194. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1473-3.
8. Gupta A TM, Sharma D. Use of social media marketing in healthcare. Journal of Health Management.: SAGE journals; Article first published online: July 24,2013. p. page(s): 293-302. DOI: 10.1177%2F0972063413489058.

9. Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF, Mihalcea R, et al. Fake News: Spread of Misinformation about Urological Conditions on Social Media. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(3):437-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.011.
10. Pratsinis M, Babst C, Langenauer J, et al. Qualitative Assessment of Medical Information on YouTube: A Multilingual Comparison of Common Urological Conditions. Urol Int. 2021;105(9-10):757-63. DOI: 10.1159/000517292.
11. Jain N, Abboudi H, Kalic A, et al. YouTube as a source of patient information for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(1):79 e11-79 e14. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.004.
12. 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(15):1244-5.
13. 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(9):2070-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x.
14. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Information in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(22):E1334-E9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691.
15. Loeb S, Katz MS, Langford A, et al. Prostate cancer and social media. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15(7):422-9. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-018-0006-0.
16. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-11. DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
17. Pubmed search ‘’Youtube’’ 2022 [Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=youtube+videos&sort=date.
18. Pubmed search ‘’Youtube urology’’ 2022 [Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=youtube+urology&sort=date.
19. Morra S, Colla Ruvolo C, Napolitano L, et al. YouTube(TM) as a source of information on bladder pain syndrome: A contemporary analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(1):237-45. DOI: 10.1002/nau.24945.
20. Culha Y, Seyhan Ak E, Merder E, et al. Analysis of the YouTube videos on pelvic floor muscle exercise training in terms of their reliability and quality. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-020-02620-w.
21. Culha Y, Culha MG, Acaroglu R. Evaluation of YouTube Videos Regarding Clean Intermittent Catheterization Application. Int Neurourol J. 2020;24(3):286-92. DOI: 10.5213/inj.2040098.049.
22. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a Source of Information About Premature Ejaculation Treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16(11):1734-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.008.
23. Batur AF, Altintas E, Gul M. Evaluation of YouTube videos on primary bladder pain syndrome. Int Urogynecol J. 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05107-7.