Article2017

YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction

J. Tristan Cassidy · Edmund Fitzgerald · May S. Cleary · Brian M. Devitt · Joseph Frederick Baker

168 citations0/0 files storedKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social Media in Health Education Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques Health Literacy and Information Accessibility

Abstract

PURPOSE: YouTube is a global medium used predominantly by young adults (aged 18-49 years). This study examined the quality of YouTube information regarding ACL injury and reconstruction. METHODS: YouTube was searched on the 13th of June 2015 for "ACL" and "anterior cruciate ligament" with/without associated terms of "injury", "reconstruction", and "surgery". Videos were evaluated by two independent reviewers [EF (Reviewer 1), (Reviewer 2)] using two recognized information scoring systems (Modified DISCERN (MD) 0-5 and JAMA Benchmark 0-4) and an adaptation of a score designed for written ACL information [ACL Specific Score (ASS) 0-25]. The ASS categorized scores as very good (21-25), good (16-20), moderate (11-15), poor (6-10), and very poor (0-5). Number of views/likes/dislikes, animation, and continent of origin and source (e.g., corporate/educational) were recorded. Correlation of video characteristics with number of views was examined using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by Interclass Correlation Co-efficient (ICC). RESULTS: Following a filtering process of the 964,770 identified videos, 39 videos were retained. The mean MD score was 2.3 (standard deviation (SD) ±0.9) for Reviewer 1 and 2.2 (SD ±0.9) for Reviewer 2 (ICC = 0.7). The mean JAMA score was 2.5(SD ±0.7) for Reviewer 1 and 2.3 (SD ±0.7) for Reviewer 2 (ICC = 0.8). The mean ASS was 6.3 (SD ±3.5) for Reviewer 1 and 4.6 (SD ±2.9) for Reviewer 2 (ICC = 0.9). Five videos achieved moderate score (13%), while 15 (38%) and 19 (49%) scored as poor and very poor, respectively. There was no correlation between number of views and video quality/video source for any scoring system. CONCLUSION: The majority of videos viewed on YouTube regarding ACL injury and treatment are of low quality.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 168 citations exist upstream.

References

2014Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review 2012YouTube for Information on Rheumatoid Arthritis — A Wakeup Call?2013Is Content Really King? An Objective Analysis of the Public's Response to Medical Videos on YouTube

Cited by

2019A Quality Analysis of Disc Herniation Videos on YouTube 2019Quality of Online Video Resources Concerning Patient Education for the Meniscus: A YouTube‐Based Quality‐Control Study 2019YouTube as a Source of Information About the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Content‐Quality and Reliability Analysis 2019YouTube as a source of patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms 2019Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of the Information on Rotator Cuff Repair on YouTube 2019Quality of Information Available on YouTube Videos Pertaining to Thyroid Cancer 2020Analysis of the Most Viewed First 50 Videos on YouTube about Breast Cancer 2021A quality assessment of YouTube content on shoulder instability

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.