4.0 Article

YouTube as an information source for clubfoot: a quality analysis of video content

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS-PART B
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 375-378

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BPB.0000000000000694

关键词

clubfoot; congenital talipes equino varus; internet; Ponseti method; YouTube

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Idiopathic clubfoot is the most common congenital anomaly of the lower extremity. YouTube has emerged as an important source of health-related information for patients and families. Parents seek information about clubfoot on YouTube. However, the quality of these videos remains unknown. Therefore, we decided to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos about clubfoot. We searched YouTube for clubfoot videos using appropriate keywords. English language videos with more than 10 000 views were included. Three fellowship trained pediatric orthopedic surgeons independently assessed the videos and classified them into corporate, hospital, education and private. The quality of information was assessed using the Modified DISCERN and JAMA benchmark scores. The search yielded 12 060 videos of which 42 were analyzed. There were 9 (21%) videos from corporate organizations, 12 (29%) from hospitals, 3 (7%) from educational organizations and 18 (43%) by private individuals. The mean Modified DISCERN score was 2.1 +/- 1.07 (range 0.3-4) and mean JAMA benchmark score was 0.9 +/- 0.65 (range 0-2). Educational videos had highest mean Modified DISCERN score (3.1 +/- 0.85) and private videos, the least (1.43 +/- 1). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.004). Hospital videos had highest mean JAMA benchmark score of 1.3 +/- 0.6 as compared with private videos which had the least mean score of 0.5 +/- 0.6. This difference was also statistically significant (P = 0.001). The results of our study indicate that the quality of information on idiopathic clubfoot on YouTube needs improvement. Videos from educational and hospital sources should be preferred over private sources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据