Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Optic Neuritis: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Validated Scoring Systems.

IF 4.9 2区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-03-22 DOI:10.1111/ceo.14527

Bedia Kesimal, Sıdıka Gerçeker Demircan, Sücattin İlker Kocamış

{"title":"Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Optic Neuritis: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Validated Scoring Systems.","authors":"Bedia Kesimal, Sıdıka Gerçeker Demircan, Sücattin İlker Kocamış","doi":"10.1111/ceo.14527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: YouTube is one of the largest internet platforms used worldwide. People often use this platform to get information. Since little is known about YouTube as a source of information on optic neuritis (ON), we investigated the quality, reliability and perception of ON videos related to content among YouTube users.Methods: An online search was conducted on YouTube using the keyword 'optic neuritis'. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 50 videos were included in the study. All videos were evaluated based on likes, comments, views, view count, source of information and video content. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN and Global Quality Scores (GQS) were independently evaluated by two ophthalmologists.Results: This study analysed 50 YouTube videos with a total of 604 283 views. The mean scores for JAMA, GQS and DISCERN were 1.95 ± 0.43, 2.96 ± 1.21 and 41.59 ± 1.46, respectively. Videos created by physicians (46% ophthalmologists, 14% non-ophthalmologist physicians) had significantly higher JAMA and GQS scores (p < 0.05) compared to others; though no differences were observed in the DISCERN scores. Video metrics such as views, likes and comments did not show a significant association with quality scores.Conclusions: The overall quality of the videos was suboptimal. Videos created by physicians demonstrated higher quality based on JAMA and GQS scores, highlighting the importance of expert authorship in online health content. The video metrics did not correlate with quality, highlighting the need for reliable evaluation criteria beyond the popularity measures.","PeriodicalId":55253,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14527","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: YouTube is one of the largest internet platforms used worldwide. People often use this platform to get information. Since little is known about YouTube as a source of information on optic neuritis (ON), we investigated the quality, reliability and perception of ON videos related to content among YouTube users.

Methods: An online search was conducted on YouTube using the keyword 'optic neuritis'. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 50 videos were included in the study. All videos were evaluated based on likes, comments, views, view count, source of information and video content. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN and Global Quality Scores (GQS) were independently evaluated by two ophthalmologists.

Results: This study analysed 50 YouTube videos with a total of 604 283 views. The mean scores for JAMA, GQS and DISCERN were 1.95 ± 0.43, 2.96 ± 1.21 and 41.59 ± 1.46, respectively. Videos created by physicians (46% ophthalmologists, 14% non-ophthalmologist physicians) had significantly higher JAMA and GQS scores (p < 0.05) compared to others; though no differences were observed in the DISCERN scores. Video metrics such as views, likes and comments did not show a significant association with quality scores.

Conclusions: The overall quality of the videos was suboptimal. Videos created by physicians demonstrated higher quality based on JAMA and GQS scores, highlighting the importance of expert authorship in online health content. The video metrics did not correlate with quality, highlighting the need for reliable evaluation criteria beyond the popularity measures.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估视神经炎YouTube视频的质量和可靠性：一项使用有效评分系统的横断面研究

背景：YouTube是全球最大的互联网平台之一。人们经常使用这个平台来获取信息。由于对YouTube作为视神经炎（on）信息来源知之甚少，我们调查了YouTube用户中与内容相关的on视频的质量、可靠性和感知。方法：使用关键词“视神经炎”在YouTube上进行在线搜索。根据纳入和排除标准，50个视频被纳入研究。所有视频都是根据点赞、评论、观看次数、观看次数、信息来源和视频内容进行评估的。美国医学会杂志（JAMA）、DISCERN和全球质量评分（GQS）由两位眼科医生独立评估。结果：这项研究分析了50个YouTube视频，总共有604 283次观看。JAMA、GQS和DISCERN的平均评分分别为1.95±0.43、2.96±1.21和41.59±1.46。医生制作的视频（46%的眼科医生，14%的非眼科医生）在JAMA和GQS评分上明显更高(p)。根据JAMA和GQS评分，医生制作的视频显示出更高的质量，突出了在线健康内容中专家作者的重要性。视频指标与质量无关，突出了除了受欢迎程度之外，还需要可靠的评估标准。

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

Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

12.50%

发文量

150

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research and reviews dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research which are international in scope and application. CEO recognises the importance of collaborative research and welcomes papers that have a direct influence on ophthalmic practice but are not unique to ophthalmology.