Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head: An Analysis of Content, Reliability, and Educational Value

Abstract

Aim: Videos related to avascular necrosis of the femoral head are no exception, and so the aim of this study is to evaluate the educational quality of YouTube videos on this topic. Material and Method: A standardized video search was performed on YouTube using the terms “avascular necrosis of the hip”, “osteonecrosis of the hip” and “avascular necrosis of the femoral head”. The top 50 videos were then analyzed, and the characteristics and content of the videos were recorded. The Journal of American Medical Association criteria, The DISCERN score, The Global Quality Score and the new YouTube ‘Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head Score” were all used to assess the reliability and accuracy of the videos. Results: The median video duration of the 50 videos was 10.85±19.17 minutes. The median number of views was 10,866 (range 221 to 278,174). According to the video content, 60% of the videos contained information about the disease, 10% were about patient experience, and the remaining 30% related to surgical technique or approach. Physicians were the primary uploader on YouTube for this topic. The rate of low-quality videos was determined as following according to the different evaluative systems: 68% according to the newly defined YouTube Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head Score, 60% according to the DISCERN score, and 56% according to The Global Quality Score. The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Global Quality Score, and DISCERN score were significantly correlated with video duration, while the New YouTube Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head Score was significantly correlated with video duration, time since upload, number of views, and like rate. Conclusion: Most of the popular YouTube videos about avascular necrosis are of a low quality.

Keywords

• YouTube
• Avascular Necrosis
• Femoral Head
• Social Media

Kaynakça

1. Petek D, Hannouche D, Suva D. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head: Pathophysiology and current concepts of treatment. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4:85-97.
2. Guggenbuhl P, Robin F, Cadiou S, Albert JD. Etiology of avascular osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Morphologie. 2021;105:80-4.
3. Mont MA, Salem HS, Piuzzi NS, et al. Nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: where do we stand today? A 5-year update. J Bone Jt Surg. 2020;102:1084-99.
4. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, et al. Patients’ use of the internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:180-5.
5. Tang K, Azhar U, Babar M, et al. Assessing the quality of YouTube videos on adhesive capsulitis. Cureus. 2022;14:e27406.
6. Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, et al. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013;8:e82469.
7. Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz KD, Windhager R. YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. Int Orthop. 2016;40:1995-2002.
8. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5:e17.

9. Macleod MG, Hoppe DJ, Simunovic N, et al. YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:136-42.
10. Akpolat AO, Kurdal DP. Is quality of YouTube content on Bankart lesion and its surgical treatment adequate? J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15:78.
11. Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, et al. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:840-5.
12. Uzun M, Cingoz T, Duran ME, et al. The videos on YouTube® related to hallux valgus surgery have insufficient information. Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;28:414-7.
13. Jildeh TR, Abbas MJ, Abbas L, et al. YouTube is a poor-quality source for patient information on rehabilitation and return to sports after hip arthroscopy. Arthrosc Sport Med Rehabil. 2021;3:e1055-63.
14. Yüce A, İğde N, Ergün T, Mısır A. YouTube provides insufficient information on patellofemoral instability. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2022;56:306-10.
15. Özbek EA, Armangil M, Karaca MO, et al. Evaluation of the reliability and quality of information in carpal tunnel syndrome shared on YouTube. J Wrist Surg. 2022;11:295-301.
16. Etzel CM, Bokshan SL, Forster TA, Owens BD. A quality assessment of YouTube content on shoulder instability. Phys Sportsmed. 2022;50:289-94.
17. Oztermeli A, Karahan N. Evaluation of YouTube video content about developmental dysplasia of the hip. Cureus. 2020;12:e9557.
18. Kwak D, Park JW, Won Y, et al. Quality and reliability evaluation of online videos on carpal tunnel syndrome: a YouTube video-based study. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e059239.
19. Celik H, Polat O, Ozcan C, et al. Assessment of the quality and reliability of the information on rotator cuff repair on YouTube. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020;106:31-4.
20. Springer B, Bechler U, Koller U, et al. Online videos provide poor information quality, reliability, and accuracy regarding rehabilitation and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Arthroscopy. 2020;36:3037-47.
21. Tekin SB, Bozgeyik B. Quality and content analysis of hallux valgus videos on YouTube®. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2023;62:85-90.
22. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, et al. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:2695-700.
23. Lock AM, Baker JF. Quality of YouTube videos for three common pediatric hip conditions: developmental hip dysplasia, slipped capital femoral epiphysis and Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2022;31:546-53.
24. Mert A, Bozgeyik B. Quality and content analysis of carpal tunnel videos on YouTube. Indian J Orthop. 2022;56:73-8.