Laparoscopic myomectomy videos on WebSurg and YouTube: does peer review process make a difference?

IF 1.2 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association Pub Date : 2024-03-06 DOI:10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2023-5-7

Sultan Can, Fatih Aktoz

{"title":"Laparoscopic myomectomy videos on WebSurg and YouTube: does peer review process make a difference?","authors":"Sultan Can, Fatih Aktoz","doi":"10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2023-5-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos on YouTube and WebSurg.Material and methods: We searched using the keyword \"laparoscopic myomectomy\" on WebSurg and selected surgical interventions in the gynecology section. Eleven videos on WebSurg were enrolled. We selected the 22 most-relevant videos on YouTube to create a comparison group, with a ratio of 1:2. Sound in videos, number of subscribers, views, likes, and comments, number of days since videos were uploaded and durations of videos were recorded. View/day, like/view, like/subscriber, and view/subscriber ratios were calculated. The videos were evaluated with usefulness score (US), global quality scoring (GQS), modified discern score (mDS) and laparoscopic surgery video educational guidelines (LAP-VEGaS).Results: The view/day ratio was lower in WebSurg compared to YouTube [1.3 (1.9) vs. 7.5 (30.6), respectively; p=0.039]. No difference was found between WebSurg and YouTube in terms of US, GQS and mDS. On LAP-VEGaS assessment, WebSurg was found to be superior to YouTube in terms of intraoperative findings [2 (1-2) vs. 1 (0-2), p=0.001], additional materials [1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-1), p=0.041], audio/written commentary [2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2), p=0.037], image quality [2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2), p=0.023], questions and total score [12 (11-13) vs. 10.5 (4-13), p=0.006]. The proportion of high-quality video was higher in WebSurg compared to YouTube, when the cut-off value of total score of 11 or 12 was used as 10 (100%) vs. 10 (50%), p=0.011 and 9 (90%) vs. 5 (25%), p=0.001, respectively.Conclusion: WebSurg was better compared to YouTube in terms of quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos.","PeriodicalId":17440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10921074/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2023-5-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos on YouTube and WebSurg.

Material and methods: We searched using the keyword "laparoscopic myomectomy" on WebSurg and selected surgical interventions in the gynecology section. Eleven videos on WebSurg were enrolled. We selected the 22 most-relevant videos on YouTube to create a comparison group, with a ratio of 1:2. Sound in videos, number of subscribers, views, likes, and comments, number of days since videos were uploaded and durations of videos were recorded. View/day, like/view, like/subscriber, and view/subscriber ratios were calculated. The videos were evaluated with usefulness score (US), global quality scoring (GQS), modified discern score (mDS) and laparoscopic surgery video educational guidelines (LAP-VEGaS).

Results: The view/day ratio was lower in WebSurg compared to YouTube [1.3 (1.9) vs. 7.5 (30.6), respectively; p=0.039]. No difference was found between WebSurg and YouTube in terms of US, GQS and mDS. On LAP-VEGaS assessment, WebSurg was found to be superior to YouTube in terms of intraoperative findings [2 (1-2) vs. 1 (0-2), p=0.001], additional materials [1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-1), p=0.041], audio/written commentary [2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2), p=0.037], image quality [2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2), p=0.023], questions and total score [12 (11-13) vs. 10.5 (4-13), p=0.006]. The proportion of high-quality video was higher in WebSurg compared to YouTube, when the cut-off value of total score of 11 or 12 was used as 10 (100%) vs. 10 (50%), p=0.011 and 9 (90%) vs. 5 (25%), p=0.001, respectively.

Conclusion: WebSurg was better compared to YouTube in terms of quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos.

查看原文本刊更多论文

WebSurg 和 YouTube 上的腹腔镜子宫肌瘤切除术视频：同行评审程序是否会产生影响？

目的：本研究旨在评估 YouTube 和 WebSurg 上腹腔镜子宫肌瘤切除术视频的质量：本研究旨在评估 YouTube 和 WebSurg 上腹腔镜子宫肌瘤切除术视频的质量：我们在 WebSurg 上以 "腹腔镜子宫肌瘤切除术 "为关键词进行搜索，并选择了妇科部分的外科手术。WebSurg 上的 11 个视频被收录。我们在 YouTube 上选择了 22 个最相关的视频作为对比组，比例为 1:2。我们记录了视频中的声音、订阅人数、观看次数、点赞数和评论数、视频上传后的天数以及视频的持续时间。计算了观看/天数、喜欢/观看数、喜欢/用户数和观看/用户数的比率。用有用性评分（US）、总体质量评分（GQS）、改良判别评分（mDS）和腹腔镜手术视频教育指南（LAP-VEGaS）对视频进行评估：结果：WebSurg 的观看/日比率低于 YouTube [分别为 1.3 (1.9) vs. 7.5 (30.6)；P=0.039]。在 US、GQS 和 mDS 方面，WebSurg 和 YouTube 之间没有差异。在 LAP-VEGaS 评估中，WebSurg 在术中发现[2 (1-2) vs. 1 (0-2)，p=0.001]、附加资料[1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-1)，p=0.041]、音频/书面评论[2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2)，p=0.037]、图像质量[2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2)，p=0.023]、问题和总分[12 (11-13) vs. 10.5 (4-13)，p=0.006]。与YouTube相比，WebSurg的高质量视频比例更高，当使用总分11或12的临界值时，分别为10（100%）vs 10（50%），p=0.011和9（90%）vs 5（25%），p=0.001：就腹腔镜子宫肌瘤切除术视频的质量而言，WebSurg优于YouTube。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association is the official, open access publication of the Turkish-German Gynecological Education and Research Foundation and Turkish-German Gynecological Association and is published quarterly on March, June, September and December. It is an independent peer-reviewed international journal printed in English language. Manuscripts are reviewed in accordance with “double-blind peer review” process for both reviewers and authors. The target audience of Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association includes gynecologists and primary care physicians interested in gynecology practice. It publishes original works on all aspects of obstertrics and gynecology. The aim of Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association is to publish high quality original research articles. In addition to research articles, reviews, editorials, letters to the editor, diagnostic puzzle are also published. Suggestions for new books are also welcomed. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association does not charge any fee for article submission or processing.