{"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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
