{"title":"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？","authors":"Sultan Can, Fatih Aktoz","doi":"10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2023-5-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos on YouTube and WebSurg.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WebSurg was better compared to YouTube in terms of quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos on YouTube and WebSurg.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WebSurg was better compared to YouTube in terms of quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Laparoscopic myomectomy videos on WebSurg and YouTube: does peer review process make a difference?
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
