A systematic review assessing the reliability of studies focusing on urological content on YouTube.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Simone Morra, Francesco Di Bello, Simone Cilio, Agostino Fraia, Federico Polverino, Massimiliano Creta, Nicola Longo, Ciro Imbimbo, Enrico Checcucci, Stefano Puliatti, Paolo Dell'oglio, Gianluigi Califano
{"title":"A systematic review assessing the reliability of studies focusing on urological content on YouTube.","authors":"Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Simone Morra, Francesco Di Bello, Simone Cilio, Agostino Fraia, Federico Polverino, Massimiliano Creta, Nicola Longo, Ciro Imbimbo, Enrico Checcucci, Stefano Puliatti, Paolo Dell'oglio, Gianluigi Califano","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05994-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In recent years, several publications have focused on analyzing the quality of medical content on YouTube. The current systematic review aimed to summarize and analyze the available studies examining YouTube video content in the urological field.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>This is a systematic review including studies examining urological content uploaded on the YouTube platform published before November 2023. The following keywords were combined to capture relevant publications with a title/abstract search: (\"Urology\" OR \"Andrology\") AND (\"YouTube\" OR \"Social media\").</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>According to the inclusion criteria, 84 studies were included. Of all, 74 (88%) studies were published after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. A total of 52 (62%) studies used the DISCERN score, 29 (35%) the PEMAT A/V score, 30 (36%) the GQS, 23 (27%) the Misinformation score, 14 (17%) the Likert scale, and 13 (15%) the JAMA score. According to the conclusion, 62 (74%) studies reported poor quality results. Among all, only 10 (12%) studies respected our criteria of best quality methodology, defined as: 1) description of the research time frame; 2) use of incognito status; 3) the description of the inter-rater variability between reviewers; 4) use of at least one quality assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The systematic review highlights significant variability in results and methodologies across studies on the quality analysis of urological content on YouTube. The official urological community should establish guidelines for authors, aiming to enhance the reliability and importance of such publications as valuable resources for daily clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":53228,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","volume":"77 2","pages":"192-201"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05994-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In recent years, several publications have focused on analyzing the quality of medical content on YouTube. The current systematic review aimed to summarize and analyze the available studies examining YouTube video content in the urological field.

Evidence acquisition: This is a systematic review including studies examining urological content uploaded on the YouTube platform published before November 2023. The following keywords were combined to capture relevant publications with a title/abstract search: ("Urology" OR "Andrology") AND ("YouTube" OR "Social media").

Evidence synthesis: According to the inclusion criteria, 84 studies were included. Of all, 74 (88%) studies were published after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. A total of 52 (62%) studies used the DISCERN score, 29 (35%) the PEMAT A/V score, 30 (36%) the GQS, 23 (27%) the Misinformation score, 14 (17%) the Likert scale, and 13 (15%) the JAMA score. According to the conclusion, 62 (74%) studies reported poor quality results. Among all, only 10 (12%) studies respected our criteria of best quality methodology, defined as: 1) description of the research time frame; 2) use of incognito status; 3) the description of the inter-rater variability between reviewers; 4) use of at least one quality assessment tool.

Conclusions: The systematic review highlights significant variability in results and methodologies across studies on the quality analysis of urological content on YouTube. The official urological community should establish guidelines for authors, aiming to enhance the reliability and importance of such publications as valuable resources for daily clinical practice.

一项评估YouTube上泌尿学内容研究可靠性的系统综述。
引言:近年来,一些出版物专注于分析YouTube上医疗内容的质量。本系统综述旨在总结和分析泌尿学领域YouTube视频内容的现有研究。证据获取:这是一项系统综述,包括对2023年11月之前发布的上传至YouTube平台上的泌尿学内容的研究。将以下关键词结合起来,通过标题/摘要搜索获取相关出版物:(“Urology”或“Andrology”)和(“YouTube”或“Social media”)。证据综合:根据纳入标准,纳入84项研究。其中,74项(88%)研究是在COVID-19大流行爆发后发表的。共有52项(62%)研究使用了DISCERN评分,29项(35%)使用了PEMAT A/V评分,30项(36%)使用了GQS评分,23项(27%)使用了Misinformation评分,14项(17%)使用了Likert量表,13项(15%)使用了JAMA评分。根据结论,62项(74%)研究报告了质量差的结果。在所有研究中,只有10项(12%)研究符合我们的最佳质量方法标准,定义为:1)对研究时间框架的描述;2)使用隐姓埋名;3)评价者间变异的描述;4)使用至少一种质量评估工具。结论:该系统综述强调了YouTube上泌尿学内容质量分析的研究结果和方法的显著差异。官方泌尿外科团体应该为作者建立指南,旨在提高这些出版物作为日常临床实践宝贵资源的可靠性和重要性。
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
Minerva Urology and Nephrology
Minerva Urology and Nephrology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
32.70%
发文量
237
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信