{"title":"YouTube®糖尿病和多囊卵巢综合症视频的质量、内容和可靠性评估:比较同行评审视频的横断面分析系统综述。","authors":"Shams Ali Baig, Kashish Malhotra, Anagh Josh Banerjee, Mukunth Kowsik, Khushi Kumar, Fazna Rahman, Syeda Sabbah Batul, Mohammed Faraaz Saiyed, Vardhan Venkatesh, Pranav Viswanath Iyer, Punith Kempegowda","doi":"10.1530/EC-24-0059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>YouTube® is one of the leading platforms for health information. However, the lack of regulation of content and quality raises concerns about accuracy and reliability. CoMICs (Concise Medical Information Cines) are evidence-based short videos created by medical students and junior doctors and reviewed by experts to ensure clinical accuracy. We performed a systematic review to understand the impact of videos on knowledge and awareness about diabetes and PCOS. We then evaluated the quality of YouTube® videos about diabetes and PCOS using various validated quality assessment tools and compared these with CoMICs videos on the same topics. Quality assessment tools like DISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, and global quality scale (GQS) score were employed. Some of the authors of this study also co-authored the creation of some of the CoMICs evaluated. Our study revealed that while videos effectively improve understanding of diabetes and PCOS, there are notable differences in quality and reliability of the videos on YouTube®. For diabetes, CoMICs videos had higher DISCERN scores (CoMICs vs YouTube®: 2.4 vs 1.6), superior reliability (P < 0.01), and treatment quality (P < 0.01) and met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs 30.6%) and currency (100% vs 53.1%). For PCOS, CoMICs had higher DISCERN scores (2.9 vs 1.9), reliability (P < 0.01), and treatment quality (P < 0.01); met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs 34.0%) and currency (100% vs 54.0%); and had higher GQS scores (4.0 vs 3.0). In conclusion, CoMICs outperformed other similar sources on YouTube® in providing reliable evidence-based medical information which may be used for patient education.</p>","PeriodicalId":11634,"journal":{"name":"Endocrine Connections","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the quality, content, and reliability of YouTube® videos on diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review with cross-sectional analysis comparing peer-reviewed videos.\",\"authors\":\"Shams Ali Baig, Kashish Malhotra, Anagh Josh Banerjee, Mukunth Kowsik, Khushi Kumar, Fazna Rahman, Syeda Sabbah Batul, Mohammed Faraaz Saiyed, Vardhan Venkatesh, Pranav Viswanath Iyer, Punith Kempegowda\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EC-24-0059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>YouTube® is one of the leading platforms for health information. However, the lack of regulation of content and quality raises concerns about accuracy and reliability. CoMICs (Concise Medical Information Cines) are evidence-based short videos created by medical students and junior doctors and reviewed by experts to ensure clinical accuracy. We performed a systematic review to understand the impact of videos on knowledge and awareness about diabetes and PCOS. We then evaluated the quality of YouTube® videos about diabetes and PCOS using various validated quality assessment tools and compared these with CoMICs videos on the same topics. Quality assessment tools like DISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, and global quality scale (GQS) score were employed. Some of the authors of this study also co-authored the creation of some of the CoMICs evaluated. Our study revealed that while videos effectively improve understanding of diabetes and PCOS, there are notable differences in quality and reliability of the videos on YouTube®. For diabetes, CoMICs videos had higher DISCERN scores (CoMICs vs YouTube®: 2.4 vs 1.6), superior reliability (P < 0.01), and treatment quality (P < 0.01) and met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs 30.6%) and currency (100% vs 53.1%). For PCOS, CoMICs had higher DISCERN scores (2.9 vs 1.9), reliability (P < 0.01), and treatment quality (P < 0.01); met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs 34.0%) and currency (100% vs 54.0%); and had higher GQS scores (4.0 vs 3.0). In conclusion, CoMICs outperformed other similar sources on YouTube® in providing reliable evidence-based medical information which may be used for patient education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endocrine Connections\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227060/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endocrine Connections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-24-0059\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endocrine Connections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-24-0059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
YouTube® 是健康信息的主要平台之一。然而,由于缺乏对内容和质量的监管,人们对其准确性和可靠性产生了担忧。CoMIC(简明医学信息视频)是由医科学生和初级医生制作的基于证据的短视频,并由专家进行审核,以确保临床准确性。我们进行了一项系统性回顾,以了解视频对糖尿病和多囊卵巢综合症知识和认知的影响。然后,我们使用各种经过验证的质量评估工具对 YouTube® 上有关糖尿病和多囊卵巢综合症的视频进行了质量评估,并将其与 CoMICs 上相同主题的视频进行了比较。我们使用了 DISCERN、JAMA 基准标准和全球质量评分 (GQS) 等质量评估工具。本研究的一些作者还与他人共同创作了一些被评估的 CoMICs。我们的研究表明,虽然视频能有效增进人们对糖尿病和多囊卵巢综合症的了解,但 YouTube® 上的视频在质量和可靠性方面存在明显差异。在糖尿病方面,CoMICs 视频的 DISCERN 分数更高(CoMICs vs YouTube®:2.4 vs 1.6),可靠性更高(p
Assessment of the quality, content, and reliability of YouTube® videos on diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review with cross-sectional analysis comparing peer-reviewed videos.
YouTube® is one of the leading platforms for health information. However, the lack of regulation of content and quality raises concerns about accuracy and reliability. CoMICs (Concise Medical Information Cines) are evidence-based short videos created by medical students and junior doctors and reviewed by experts to ensure clinical accuracy. We performed a systematic review to understand the impact of videos on knowledge and awareness about diabetes and PCOS. We then evaluated the quality of YouTube® videos about diabetes and PCOS using various validated quality assessment tools and compared these with CoMICs videos on the same topics. Quality assessment tools like DISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, and global quality scale (GQS) score were employed. Some of the authors of this study also co-authored the creation of some of the CoMICs evaluated. Our study revealed that while videos effectively improve understanding of diabetes and PCOS, there are notable differences in quality and reliability of the videos on YouTube®. For diabetes, CoMICs videos had higher DISCERN scores (CoMICs vs YouTube®: 2.4 vs 1.6), superior reliability (P < 0.01), and treatment quality (P < 0.01) and met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs 30.6%) and currency (100% vs 53.1%). For PCOS, CoMICs had higher DISCERN scores (2.9 vs 1.9), reliability (P < 0.01), and treatment quality (P < 0.01); met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs 34.0%) and currency (100% vs 54.0%); and had higher GQS scores (4.0 vs 3.0). In conclusion, CoMICs outperformed other similar sources on YouTube® in providing reliable evidence-based medical information which may be used for patient education.
期刊介绍:
Endocrine Connections publishes original quality research and reviews in all areas of endocrinology, including papers that deal with non-classical tissues as source or targets of hormones and endocrine papers that have relevance to endocrine-related and intersecting disciplines and the wider biomedical community.