Evaluation of YouTube videos on soft tissue sarcomas: How reliable are YouTube shares?

Abstract

Objectives: Soft tissue sarcomas of the musculoskeletal system account for approximately 8% of malignant tumors in adolescents and young adults. As the fight against cancer, a disease of our era, increases, this topic has become increasingly popular on social media. This study aims to investigate the quality and reliability of videos published on YouTube providing information on musculoskeletal soft tissue sarcomas.

Methods: In the study, the 50 videos with the highest number of views, published on YouTube and providing information about soft tissue tumors of the musculoskeletal system, were evaluated and analyzed by two different observers. Observers scored the videos according to the DISCERN and JAMA scoring systems.

Results: Of the 50 YouTube videos evaluated, the most extended video was 1 hour 29 minutes 28 seconds, while the shortest video was 45 seconds. The highest number of views was 145,122. Statistically significant high agreement was obtained between observers regarding DISCERN and JAMA scores (ICC=0.734 and P<0.01). When average DISCERN scores were evaluated, video content quality was 12% very poor, 56% poor, 26% average, and 6% good.

Conclusions: Video content providing accurate and reliable information on soft tissue sarcomas should be created so patients can understand it, with proper references, and curated by healthcare professionals. Collaboration with healthcare professionals should be sought to enhance the quality and reliability of video content on YouTube.

Keywords

• Sarcoma
• neoplasms
• connective and soft tissue
• information dissemination
• patient education
• social media

References

1. 1. Kunisada T, Nakata E, Fujiwara T, Hosono A, Takihira S, Kondo H, Ozaki T. Soft-tissue sarcoma in adolescents and young adults. Int J Clin Oncol. 2023;28(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10147-022-02119-7.
2. 2. Fukushima T, Ogura K, Akiyama T, Takeshita K, Kawai A. Soft tissue sarcoma in adolescent and young adult patients: a retrospective study using a nationwide bone and soft tissue tumor registry in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2021;51(7):1080-1087. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyab044.
3. 3. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-194. doi: 10.1177/1460458213512220.
4. 4. Kuru T, Erken HY. Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Rotator Cuff Tears. Cureus. 2020;12(2):e6852. doi: 10.7759/cureus.6852.
5. 5. 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(2):105-111. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
6. 6. 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):1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039.
7. 7. Statista. Worldwide digital population as of January 2024. 2024 [cited January 2024; Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/.
8. 8. Statista. Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2024. 2024 [cited 2024; Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.

9. 9. Burrus MT, Werner BC, Starman JS, et al. Patient Perceptions and Current Trends in Internet Use by Orthopedic Outpatients. HSS J. 2017;13(3):271-275. doi: 10.1007/s11420-017-9568-2.
10. 10. Tartaglione JP, Rosenbaum AJ, Abousayed M, Hushmendy SF, DiPreta JA. Evaluating the Quality, Accuracy, and Readability of Online Resources Pertaining to Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Spec. 2016;9(1):17-23. doi: 10.1177/1938640015592840.
11. 11. Clerici CA, Veneroni L, Bisogno G, Trapuzzano A, Ferrari A. Videos on rhabdomyosarcoma on YouTube: an example of the availability of information on pediatric tumors on the web. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012;34(8):e329-31. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0b013e31825886f8.
12. 12. Tang C, Chan M, Fok M, Fung B. Current management of hand enchondroma: a review. Hand Surg. 2015;20(1):191-195. doi: 10.1142/S0218810415300028.
13. 13. Bahar-Ozdemir Y, Ozsoy-Unubol T, Akyuz G. Is YouTube a high-quality source of information on cancer rehabilitation? J Cancer Surviv. 2022;16(5):1016-1022. doi: 10.1007/s11764-021-01093-9.
14. 14. Sahin AN, Sahin AS, Schwenter F, Sebajang H. YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Colorectal Cancer: What Do Our Patients Learn? J Cancer Educ. 2019;34(6):1160-1166. doi: 10.1007/s13187-018-1422-9.
15. 15. Citgez B, Aygün N, Yigit B, Uludag M. Evaluation of the Reliability, Utility, and Quality of the Information in Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy Vestibular Approach Videos Shared on Open Access Video Sharing Platform YouTube. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021;31(11):1279-1285. doi: 10.1089/lap.2020.0849.
16. 16. Kanlioz M, Ekici U. Reliability and Educational Features of YouTube Videos About Hernia Operations Performed Using Laparoscopic TEP Method. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020;30(1):74-78. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000748.
17. 17. Askin A, Sengul L, Tosun A. YouTube as a Source of Information for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Stroke: A Quality, Reliability and Accuracy Analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;29(12):105309. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105309.
18. 18. Chou WY, Hunt Y, Folkers A, Augustson E. Cancer survivorship in the age of YouTube and social media: a narrative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e7. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1569.