Advertisement

An investigation of the reliability of YouTube videos on undescended testis

  • Tanju Keten
    Correspondence
    Correspondence to: Tanju. Keten, University of Health Sciences, Ankara City Hospital, Department of Urology, 06800, Ankara, Turkey, Tel.: +90 506 316 38 74
    Affiliations
    University of Health Sciences, Ankara City Hospital, Department of Urology, Ankara, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
  • Anıl Erkan
    Affiliations
    University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research, Hospital, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author

      Summary

      Introduction and objective

      There are thousands of patient information videos published on YouTube, the most watched video sharing platform; however, most of these videos contain incomplete or incorrect information. Interestingly, some videos with incomplete or incorrect information have a higher view rate. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of patient information videos on ‘undescended testis’ published on YouTube.

      Material and method

      A search was conducted on YouTube using the keywords ‘undescended testis’ and ‘cryptorchidism’, and a total of 373 videos were found. Among these, 122 patient information videos presented in the English language were examined. Four different scoring systems were used to evaluate the quality of the videos: Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials, Global Quality Score, Journal of American Medical Association score, and modified DISCERN scoring system. Whether the videos contained accurate and sufficient information was evaluated using a scoring system developed based on the patient information booklet prepared by the European Association of Urology (EAU) on undescended testis.

      Results

      The median duration (sec), number of views and number of likes of the videos were 269 (11–2484), 589 (6–1.563561) and 7 (0–4.200), respectively. According to the EAU-patient information scoring (EAU-PIS), while 32 (26.2%) of the total 122 videos contained a good level of informativeness (score: 8–10), the view rate of these videos was only 4.1% among all videos. When the top 10 most watched videos were evaluated, their mean EAU-PIS was 5.9 ± 2.81, and these videos contained a moderate level of informativeness. On the positive side, 90% of all the videos recommended surgery as a treatment option.

      Discussion

      Although YouTube is a widely used video-sharing platform, it is also a website where people or institutions can easily upload non-standardized videos due to the absence of regulations. Therefore, although it is an easily accessible source of information, it has many gaps in terms of reliability. As shown in our study, the rate of videos with accurate information was very low. It would be beneficial for viewers to be aware of this and accept YouTube as a source where they can have a general idea about a subject in which they are interested rather than using it as a reference information site. In future, YouTube can become a reference source in the medical field, especially with the standardization of medical videos through the collaboration of various organizations.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Youtube.com Competitive Analysis, Marketing Mix and Traffic. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com 2021 [accessed 28th Oct 2021].

        • Steinberg P.L.
        • Wason S.
        • Stern J.M.
        • Deters L.
        • Kowal B.
        • Seigne J.
        YouTube as source of prostate cancer information.
        Urology. 2010; 75: 619-622https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.059
        • Desai T.
        • Shariff A.
        • Dhingra V.
        • Minhas D.
        • Eure M.
        • Kats M.
        Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube.
        PLoS One. 2013; 18 (8)e82469https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
        • Loeb S.
        • Reines K.
        • Abu-Salha Y.
        • French W.
        • Butaney M.
        • Macaluso Jr., J.N.
        • et al.
        Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube.
        Eur Urol. 2021; 79: 56-59https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.014
        • Kumar N.
        • Pandey A.
        • Venkatraman A.
        • Garg N.
        Are video sharing web sites a useful source of information on hypertension?.
        J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014; 8: 481-490https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jash.2014.05.001
        • Loeb S.
        • Sengupta S.
        • Butaney M.
        • Macaluso Jr., J.N.
        • Czarniecki S.W.
        • Robbins R.
        • et al.
        Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 564-567https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.056
        • Sood A.
        • Sarangi S.
        • Pandey A.
        • Murugiah K.
        YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease.
        Urology. 2011; 77: 558-562https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.536
        • Warren C.J.
        • Sawhney R.
        • Shah T.
        • Behbahani S.
        • Sadeghi-Nejad H.
        YouTube and men's health: a review of the current literature.
        Sex Med Rev. 2021; 9: 280-288https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.09.002
        • Singh A.G.
        • Singh S.
        • Singh P.P.
        YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis–a wakeup call?.
        J Rheumatol. 2012; 39: 899-903https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.111114
        • Silberg W.M.
        • Lundberg G.D.
        • Musacchio R.A.
        Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware.
        JAMA. 1997; 16 (277): 1244-1245
        • Radonjic A.
        • Fat Hing N.N.
        • Harlock J.
        • Naji F.
        YouTube as a source of patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
        J Vasc Surg. 2020; 71: 637-644https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2019.08.230
        • European Association of Urology
        Cryptorchidism – EAU patient information.
        2020 ([cited 2021 28th Oct]; Available from:)
        • Berkowitz G.S.
        • Lapinski R.H.
        • Dolgin S.E.
        • Gazella J.G.
        • Bodian C.A.
        • Holzman I.R.
        Prevalence and natural history of cryptorchidism.
        Pediatrics. 1993; 92: 44-49
        • Atkinson N.L.
        • Saperstein S.L.
        • Pleis J.
        Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample.
        J Med Internet Res. 2009; 20 (11): e4https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1035
        • Jain N.
        • Abboudi H.
        • Kalic A.
        • Gill F.
        • Al-Hasani H.
        YouTube as a source of patient information for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate.
        Clin Radiol. 2019; 74: 79.e11-79.e14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.004
        • Engeler D.S.
        • Hösli P.O.
        • John H.
        • Bannwart F.
        • Sulser T.
        • Amin M.B.
        • et al.
        Early orchiopexy: prepubertal intratubular germ cell neoplasia and fertility outcome.
        Urology. 2000; 56: 144-148https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00560-4
        • Khatri P.
        • Singh S.R.
        • Belani N.K.
        • Yeong Y.L.
        • Lohan R.
        • Lim Y.W.
        • et al.
        YouTube as source of information on 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak: a cross sectional study of English and Mandarin content.
        Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020; 35: 101636https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101636
        • Garg N.
        • Venkatraman A.
        • Pandey A.
        • Kumar N.
        YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis.
        Nephrology (Carlton). 2015; 20: 315-320https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12397
        • Clerici C.A.
        • 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: e329-e331https://doi.org/10.1097/MPH.0b013e31825886f8
        • Pant S.
        • Deshmukh A.
        • Murugiah K.
        • Kumar G.
        • Sachdeva R.
        • Mehta J.L.
        Assessing the credibility of the "YouTube approach" to health information on acute myocardial infarction.
        Clin Cardiol. 2012; 35: 281-285https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.21981