Evaluation of the Quality, Reliability and Usability of YouTube About ‘Guided Tissue Regeneration’

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality, reliability and usability in student education of videos on YouTube about Guided Tissue Regeneration (GTR). Materials and Methods: The YouTube platform was searched on 22 July 2024 using the term GTR. The first 500 videos were initially evaluated, and 131 videos were included in the study. For all videos, the duration of the video, total number of views, number of likes and dislikes, the number of streams to date since the time of upload, the source of uploads, and the subject of the video were recorded. The viewer interaction index, video power index, and view rate were calculated. The Global Quality Scale (GQS) was used to evaluate the quality of the videos, and the Modified DISCERN tool and Usefulness Scores were analyzed to evaluate reliability. Results: Statistically significant, positive relationships were found between the number of views, number of likes, number of followers, video duration, and GQS. Significant, positive relationships were found between DISCERN and Usefulness Scores and video duration. No statistically significant relationships were found between the video upload source and the GQS, Usefulness and DISCERN scores. Conclusion: It was observed that videos about GTR on YouTube are not of sufficient quality and reliability for the education of dentistry students or for patient information. Students and patients should be made aware that not all information they obtain from online video sources is completely accurate.

Keywords

• DISCERN
• GQS
• Guided Tissue Regeneration
• Usefulness Score
• YouTube

Youtube’ daki ‘Yönlendirilmiş Doku Rejenerasyonu’ ile İlgili Videoların Kalitesinin, Güvenilirliğinin ve Kullanılabilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmamızda YouTube deki ‘Yönlendirilmiş Doku Rejenerasyonu’ ile ilgili videoların kalitesini, güvenilirliğini ve öğrenci eğitiminde kullanılabilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamızda 22 Temmuz 2024’ te ''Yönlendirilmiş Doku Rejenarasyonu'' arama terimi kullanılarak YouTube'da bir arama yapıldı. İlk 500 video ön değerlendirmeye alındı ve 131 video çalışmaya dahil edildi. Tüm videolar için videonun süresi, toplam görüntüleme sayısı, beğeni ve beğenmeme sayısı, yükleme zamanında bugüne kadar geçen sürü, yükleme kaynağı ve videonun konusu kaydedildi. İzleyici etkileşim endeksi, video güç indeksi ve görüntüleme oranı hesaplandı. Videoların kalitesi değerlendirmek için Küresel Kalite Ölçeği (GQS), güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek için Değiştirilmiş DISCERN aracı ve Faydalılık Puanları analiz edildi. Bulgular: Görüntülenme sayısı, beğeni sayısı, takipçi sayısı, video süresi, ile GQS arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı, pozitif yönlü ilişkiler bulunmuştur. DISCERN ve Yararlılık Puanı ile video süresi arasında olarak anlamlı, pozitif yönlü ilişkiler görüldü. Video yükleme kaynağı ile GQS, Usefulness ve DISCERN Scorları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişkiler elde edilmemiştir. Sonuç: YouTube’ daki YDR videolarının içeriğinin diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin eğitimi ve hasta bilgilendirilmesi için yeterli kalite ve güvenilirliğe sahip olmadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Öğrencilere ve hastalara çevrimiçi video kaynaklarından elde ettikleri tüm bilgilerin tamamen doğru olmadığı konusunda farkındalık kazandırılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yönlendirmiş Doku Rejenerasyonu
• GQS
• DISCERN
• Yararlılık Puanı
• Youtube

Kaynakça

1. 1. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, et al. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 81: 672-76.
2. 2. Hasegawa Y, Sato S, Takayama T et al. Short-term effects of rhBMP-2-enhanced bone augmentation beyond the skeletal envelope within a titanium cap in rabbit calvarium. J Periodontol. 2008; 79: 348-54.
3. 3. Nyman S. Bone regeneration using the principle of guided tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol. 1991; 18: 494-98.
4. 4. Hämmerle CH, Schmid J, Lang NP et al. Temporal dynamics of healing in rabbit cranial defects using guided bone regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53: 167-74.
5. 5. Ogiso B, Hughes FJ, Melcher AH et al. Fibroblasts inhibit mineralised bone nodule formation by rat bone marrow stromal cells in vitro. J Cell Physiol. 1991; 146: 442-50.
6. 6. Dimitriou R., Mataliotakis GI, Calori GM et al. The role of barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration and restoration of large bone defects: current experimental and clinical evidence. BMC Med. 2012; 26; 10: 81.
7. 7. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided bone regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 567.
8. 8. Kanmaz B, Buduneli N. Evaluation of information quality on the internet for periodontal disease patients. Oral Dis. 2021; 27: 348-56.

9. 9. Moja L, Kwag KH. Point of care information services: a platform for self-directed continuing medical education for front line decision makers. Postgrad Med J. 2015; 91: 83-91.
10. 10. Farag M, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk, N. Use of YouTube as a resource for surgical education clarity or confusion. Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 6: 445-49.
11. 11. Ozsoy‐Unubol T, Alanbay‐Yagci E. YouTube as a source of information on fibromyalgia. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021; 24:197-202.
12. 12. Bariş K, Hendek MK, Olgun E. Evaluation of the quality of peri-implantitis videos on YouTube. J Craniofac Surg. 2023; 34: 1813-16.
13. 13. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS et al. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015; 21: 173-94.
14. 14. Ho A, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Social media patient testimonials in implant dentistry: information or misinformation? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 791-800.
15. 15. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016; 22: 202-28.
16. 16. Nagpal SJS, Karimianpour A, Mukhija D et al. YouTube videos as a source of medical information during the Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic. Springerplus. 2015; 28; 4: 457.
17. 17. Ajumobi AB, Malakouti M, Bullen A, et al. YouTube™ as a Source of Instructional Videos on Bowel Preparation: a Content Analysis. J Cancer Educ. 2016; 31: 755-59.
18. 18. Stellefson M, Chaney B, Ochipa K, et al. YouTube as a source of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient education: a social media content analysis. Chron Respir Dis. 2014; 11: 61-71.
19. 19. Basch CH, Hillyer GC, MacDonald ZL, et al. Characteristics of YouTube™ videos related to mammography. J Cancer Educ. 2015; 30: 699-703.
20. 20. Steinberg PL, Wason S, Stern JM et al. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology. 2010; 75: 619-22.
21. 21. ElKarmi R., Hassona Y, Taimeh D, et al. YouTube as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017; 27: 437-43.
22. 22. Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, et al. Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018; 23: E463-8.
23. 23. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43: E1334-39.
24. 24. 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: 105-11.
25. 25. Kumar N, Pandey A, Venkatraman A et al. Are video sharing web sites a useful source of information on hypertension? J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014; 8: 481-90.
26. 26. Menziletoglu D, Guler A, Isik B. Are YouTube videos related to dental implant useful for patient education? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 121: 661-64.
27. 27. Pollock W, Rea PM. The use of social media in anatomical and health professional education: A systematic review. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019; 1205: 149-70.
28. 28. Azer SA. Mechanisms in cardiovascular diseases: how useful are medical textbooks, eMedicine, and YouTube? Adv Physiol Educ. 2014; 38: 124-34.
29. 29. Wu J, Li D, Lin M. YouTube as an information source for bleeding gums: a quantitative and qualitative analysis. PLoS One. 2024; 19: E0298597.
30. 30. Bulut SO, Ercel NO. Quality of free gingival graft content in youtube videos: usability in patient information and student education. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2023; 28: E607-13.
31. 31. Hamdan AA, Shaqman M, Abu Karaky A, et al. Medical reliability of a video‐sharing website: The gingival recession model. Eur J Dent Educ. 2019; 23: 175-83.
32. 32. Yavuz MC, Buyuk SK, Genc E. Does YouTube™ offer high quality information? Evaluation of accelerated orthodontics videos. Ir J Med Sci. 2020; 189: 505-09.
33. 33. Kurian N, Varghese KG, Daniel S, et al. Are YouTube videos on complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses useful for patient education? J Prosthet Dent. 2024; 131: 684-88.
34. 34. Gaş S, Zincir ÖÖ, Bozkurt A. Are YouTube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 77: 1776-83.
35. 35. Lavorgna L, De Stefano M., Sparaco M, et al. Fake news, influencers and health-related professional participation on the Web: a pilot study on a social-network of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018; 25: 175-78.
36. 36. Grajales IIIF J, Sheps S, Ho K et al. Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res. 2014; 16: E13.
37. 37. Knösel M, Jung K, Bleckmann A et al. YouTube, dentistry, and dental education. J Dent Educ. 2011; 75: 1558-68.
38. 38. Pirraglia PA, Kravitz RL. Social media: new opportunities, new ethical concerns.J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28:165-166.
39. 39. Delli K, Livas C, Vissink A, et al. Is YouTube useful as a source of information for Sjögren's syndrome? Oral Dis. 2016; 22: 196-201.
40. 40. Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan H. YouTube as a patient‐information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016; 49: 1194-1200.