YouTube'da Retina Dekolmanına İlişkin Bilgilerin Kalite ve Güvenilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Giriş: Bu çalışmanın amacı retina dekolmanı ile ilgili YouTube videolarının güvenilirliğini ve etkinliğini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: YouTube'da "retina dekolmanı", "retina dekolmanı semptomu" ve "retina dekolmanı semptomları ve tedavisi" arama terimleri kullanılarak toplam 85 video analiz edildi ve toplam 63 video çalışmaya dahil edildi. Son olarak, çalışmaya dahil edilen videoların kalitesi ve güvenilirliği DISCERN skoru, Global Kalite Ölçeği (GQS) ve JAMA skoru kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar: Analiz edilen toplam 63 video için ortalama DISCERN puanı 55.8 ± 18.1, JAMA puanı 2.6 ± 1.4 ve GQS puanı 3.7 ± 1.3'tür. İzlenen videoların toplam beğeni sayısı 3090±1977 iken, toplam beğenmeme sayısı 50,2±40,6'dır. Videoların toplam süresi 392±93,1 saniyedir. Doktorlar tarafından yüklenen videoların DISCERN, JAMA ve GQS puanları YouTube sağlık kanalları tarafından yüklenen videolardan istatiksel olarak anlamlı derecede yüksek bulunmuştur (sırasıyla; p<0.001,p<0.001,p<0.001). Sonuçlar: YouTube'da retina dekolmanı hakkında bilgi veren videoların kalitesi yeterlidir. Retina dekolmanı acil bir durumdur. Bu nedenle, hastalar acil servise veya göz doktoruna gitmek yerine ilk olarak YouTube'a başvurduklarından, bu videoların yeterli olması ve yanıltıcı olmaması gerekir. Bu nedenle sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yüklenen daha fazla videoya ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DISCERN skoru
• Youtube
• Retina Dekolmanı
• GQS skoru

Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of the Information on Retinal Detachment on YouTube

Öz

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and effectiveness of YouTube videos on retinal detachment. Materials and Methods: A total of 85 videos were analyzed on YouTube using the search terms "retinal detachment", "retinal detachment symptom" and "retinal detachment symptoms and treatment". A total of 63 videos were included in the study. Finally, the quality and reliability of the videos included in the study were evaluated using the DISCERN score, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the JAMA score. Results: The mean the DISCERN score was 55.8 ± 18.1, the JAMA score was 2.6 ± 1.4, and the GQS score was 3.7 ± 1.3 for a total of 63 videos analyzed. The total number of likes of the videos watched was 3090±1977, while the total number of dislikes was 50.2±40.6. The total duration of the videos was 392±93.1 seconds. The DISCERN, the JAMA and the GQS scores of videos uploaded by physicians were found to be statistically significantly higher than videos uploaded by YouTube health channels (p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The quality of videos on YouTube providing information about retinal detachment is adequate. Retinal detachment is an emergency. For this reason, these videos must be adequate and not misleading, as patients first consult YouTube instead of going to the emergency room or ophthalmologist. There is therefore a need for more videos uploaded by health professionals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DISCERN score
• Youtube
• Retinal Detachment
• GQS score

Kaynakça

1. 1.Steel D. Retinal detachment. BMJ clinical evidence 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940167/
2. 2.Lin JB, Narayanan R, Philippakis E, et al. Retinal detachment. Nature re-views. Disease primers 2024; 10(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-024-00501-5
3. 3.Zaky H, Salem A, Alzubaidi M, et al. Using AI for Detection, Prediction and Classification of Retinal Detachment. Studies in health technology and infor¬matics 2023; 305: 636-9. https://doi.org/10.3233/shti230578
4. 4.Celik H, Polat O, Ozcan C, et al. Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of the Information on Rotator Cuff Repair on YouTube. Orthopaedics & trauma¬tology, surgery & research. 2020; 106(1): 31-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.10.004
5. 5.Wasserman M, Baxter NN, Rosen B, et al. Systematic review of internet pa¬tient information on colorectal cancer surgery. Diseases of the colon and rec¬tum 2014; 57(1): 64-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000011
6. 6.Kwok TM, Singla AA, Phang K, et al. YouTube as a source of patient infor-mation for varicose vein treatment options. Journal of vascular surgery. Ve¬nous and lymphatic disorders. 2017; 5(2): 238-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.10.078
7. 7.Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, et al. Is content really king? An objective anal¬ysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PloS one. 2013; 8(12): e82469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
8. 8.Kutluturk I, Aykut V, Durmus E. The use of Online Videos for Vitreoretinal Surgery Training: A Comprehensive Analysis. Beyoglu Eye Journal 2022; 7(1): 9-17. https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2022.46338

9. 9.Songur MS, Citirik M. Evaluation of the Usefulness of YouTube Videos on Retinal Detachment Surgery. Cureus. 2021; 13(11): e19457. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19457
10. 10.Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Patient Education and Counseling. 2002; 47(3): 273-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00225-7
11. 11.Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 1999; 53(2): 105-11. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
12. 12.Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, et al. A systematic review of patient in-flammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. The American journal of gastroenterology 2007; 102(9): 2070-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x
13. 13.Mangan MS, Cakir A, Yurttaser Ocak S, et al. Analysis of the quality, relia-bility, and popularity of information on strabismus on YouTube. Strabismus. 2020; 28(4): 175-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273972.2020.1836002
14. 14.Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and as¬suring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. Jama. 1997; 277(15): 1244-5.
15. 15.Cakmak G, Mantoglu B. Reliability and Quality of YouTube Contents Per¬taining to Pancreatic Cancer. Cureus. 2021; 13(3): e14085. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14085
16. 16.Kuru T, Erken HY. Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Rotator Cuff Tears. Cureus. 2020; 12(2): e6852. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.6852
17. 17.Aydin MF, Aydin MA. Quality and reliability of information available on YouTube and Google pertaining gastroesophageal reflux disease. Interna-tional journal of medical informatics. 2020; 137: 104107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104107
18. 18.Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Infor-mation in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube. Spine. 2018; 43(22): E1334-e1339. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002691
19. 19.Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA. Readability of patient education ma-terials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC ophthalmology. 2016; 16: 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0315-0
20. 20.Tartaglione JP, Rosenbaum AJ, Abousayed M, et al. Evaluating the Quality, Accuracy, and Readability of Online Resources Pertaining to Hallux Valgus. Foot & ankle specialist. 2016; 9(1): 17-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015592840
21. 21.Kuçuk B, Sirakaya E. An Analysis of YouTube Videos as Educational Re-sources for Patients About Refractive Surgery. Cornea. 2020; 39(4): 491-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ico.0000000000002237