Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Educational quality of YouTube content on brachial plexus injury and treatment
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, NJ, Newark, United States.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, NJ, Newark, United States.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, NJ, Newark, United States.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, NJ, Newark, United States.
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: Microsurgery, ISSN 0738-1085, E-ISSN 1098-2752, no 1, article id e31099Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction: While surgical literature exists on birth-related brachial plexus injury (BPI), there are not validated sources of information on BPI for patients, which can impact patient autonomy and decision-making. With YouTube as a popular source for patients to research diagnoses, this study aims to evaluate the quality of information regarding BPI and its treatment available on the platform.

Materials and Methods: BPI YouTube videos were screened independently by two reviewers. Videos were categorized by source: (1) academic, government, and non-profit organizations; (2) private practices, companies, and for-profit organizations; (3) independent users. Each video was evaluated for reliability, credibility, and quality using the modified DISCERN criteria (scale, 0–5), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria (scale, 0–4), and Global Quality Scale (GQS; scale, 1–5). Surgical treatment videos were analyzed by the senior author using a modified “treatment” DISCERN criteria (scale, 8–40). Non-English videos were excluded from this study. Analysis of variance tests were used to compare means.

Results: One hundred and fifteen videos were selected for final analysis. The mean modified DISCERN score was 3.26; JAMA was 2.31; GQS was 3.48. Videos were subdivided according to source. Group 1, 2, and 3 had 45, 24, and 46 videos, respectively. Modified DISCERN score was greater for Group 1 than Group 2 (3.58 vs. 3.04, p <.001) and Group 3 (3.58 vs. 3.07, p <.001). JAMA score was greater for Group 1 than Group 2 (2.63 vs 2.15, p =.041) and Group 3 (2.63 vs. 2.08, p =.002). GQS score was greater for Group 1 than Group 2 (3.93 vs. 3.31, p =.031) and Group 3 (3.93 vs. 3.13, p <.001). Of the 34 videos (44.7%) that mentioned treatment, the DISCERN score was 14.32.

Conclusion: The videos analyzed were found to have moderate reliability, credibility, and quality. The reliability of information regarding treatments for BPI was poor. Healthcare providers should supply additional information on treatment of BPI.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2024. no 1, article id e31099
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-213736DOI: 10.1002/micr.31099ISI: 001048522900001PubMedID: 37578115Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85168096753OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-213736DiVA, id: diva2:1796813
Available from: 2023-09-13 Created: 2023-09-13 Last updated: 2024-04-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

McGrath, Aleksandra

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
McGrath, Aleksandra
By organisation
OrthopaedicsProfessional Development
In the same journal
Microsurgery
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 132 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf