Assessment of YouTube Videos about Urethral Stricture and Its Management

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the reliability, transparency, usability and technical quality of videos about urethral stricture and its management in the most common video-sharing website “YouTube”.

Methods We performed a video search on YouTube using the keywords “Urethral Stricture”, “Internal Urethrotomy” and “Urethroplasty”. After excluding the videos that did not meet the inclusion criteria, demographic data of each video was recorded and assessed with the validated DISCERN questionnaire, the Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAs) and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Additionally, the Urethral Stricture Video Score was developed by two experienced surgeons to assess the technical aspects. Videos were also compared with a view to their source of upload.

Results A total of 177 videos were analysed. Videos from “University” and “Other” had a significantly higher view ratio and video power index (VPI) than the rest (all p<0.05). For all mentioned scores, even though the video sources of “Society” and “University” had significantly higher scores than the rest (all p<0.05), all scores remained at a low to moderate level at each group.

Conclusion Even though universities, societies and organisations tend to upload better videos about the management of urethral stricture in terms of general quality, reliability, transparency and technical aspects, the online visual content about urethral stricture and its management needs to be improved in order to provide more reliable and qualified information for both clinicians and patients.

Zusammenfassung

Zweck Bewertung der Zuverlässigkeit, Transparenz, Benutzerfreundlichkeit und technischen Qualität der Videos über Harnröhrenstrikturen und deren Behandlung auf der gängigsten Video-Sharing-Website „YouTube“.

Methoden Es wurde eine Videosuche auf YouTube unter den Schlüsselwörtern „Urethral Stricture“, „Internal Urethrotomy“ und „Urethroplasty“ durchgeführt. Nach dem Ausschluss der Videos, die nicht den Einschlusskriterien entsprechen, wurden die demografischen Daten jedes Videos aufgezeichnet und mit dem validierten DISCERN-Fragebogen, dem Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAs) und dem Global Quality Score (GQS) bewertet. Zusätzlich wurde der Urethral Stricture Video Score von zwei erfahrenen Chirurgen entwickelt, um die technischen Aspekte zu bewerten. Videos wurden auch nach ihrer Upload-Quelle verglichen.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 177 Videos analysiert. Videos von „Universität“ und „Sonstige“ haben ein deutlich höheres Anzeigeverhältnis und einen deutlich höheren Videoleistungsindex (VPI) als die anderen (alle p<0,05). Obwohl die Videoquellen „Gesellschaft“ und „Universität“ bei allen genannten Werten signifikant höhere Werte als der Rest aufweisen (alle p<0,05), blieben alle Werte in jeder Gruppe auf einem niedrigen bis mittleren Niveau.

Schlussfolgerung Auch wenn Universitäten, Gesellschaften und Organisationen tendenziell bessere Videos über die Behandlung von Harnröhrenstrikturen in Bezug auf allgemeine Qualität, Zuverlässigkeit, Transparenz und technische Aspekte hochladen, müssen die visuellen Online-Inhalte über Harnröhrenstrikturen und ihre Behandlung verbessert werden, um sie zu verbessern sicherere und qualifiziertere Informationen für Kliniker und Patienten bereitzustellen.

Keywords

urethral stricture - urethroplasty - internet - YouTube - video

Schlüsselwörter

Harnröhrenstriktur - Urethroplastik - Internet - YouTube - Video

Publication History

Received: 20 September 2022

Accepted after revision: 30 January 2023

Article published online:
14 March 2023

• References

• 1 Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS. et al. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015; 21: 173-194 DOI: 10.1177/1460458213512220. (PMID: 24670899)
• 2 L.Ceci. YouTube – Statistics & Facts. In: Statista. 2022
• 3 Loeb S, Carrick T, Frey C. et al. Increasing Social Media Use in Urology: 2017 American Urological Association Survey. Eur Urol Focus 2020; 6: 605-608 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.07.004. (PMID: 31351900)
• 4 Fode M, Nolsoe AB, Jacobsen FM. et al. Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction. Sex Med 2020; 8: 408-413 DOI: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.05.007. (PMID: 32593674)
• 5 Betschart P, Pratsinis M, Mullhaupt G. et al. Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading. BJU Int 2020; 125: 595-601 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14971. (PMID: 31834973)
• 6 Loeb S, Reines K, Abu-Salha Y. et al. Quality of Bladder Cancer Information on YouTube. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 56-59 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.014. (PMID: 33010986)
• 7 Lumen N, Hoebeke P, Willemsen P. et al. Etiology of urethral stricture disease in the 21st century. J Urol 2009; 182: 983-987 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.023. (PMID: 19616805)
• 8 Mangir N, Chapple C. Recent Advances in treatment of urethral stricture disease in men. F1000Res 2020; 9 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.21957.1. (PMID: 32419925)
• 9 Campos-Juanatey F, Osman NI, Greenwell T. et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urethral Stricture Disease (Part 2): Diagnosis, Perioperative Management, and Follow-up in Males. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 201-212 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.032. (PMID: 34103180)
• 10 Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G. et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 105-111 DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105. (PMID: 10396471)
• 11 Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor – Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 277: 1244-1245 DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039.
• 12 Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S. et al. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2070-2077 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x. (PMID: 17511753)
• 13 Pratsinis M, Abt D, Mullhaupt G. et al. Systematic assessment of information about surgical urinary stone treatment on YouTube. World J Urol 2021; 39: 935-942 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03236-6.
• 14 Diaz P, Takele RA, Thaker S. et al. Kidney Stone Surgery: Assessing Public Interest and Evaluating Social Media Content. J Endourol 2022; DOI: 10.1089/end.2021.0902. (PMID: 35044226)
• 15 Steinberg PL, Wason S, Stern JM. et al. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology 2010; 75: 619-622 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.059. (PMID: 19815255)
• 16 Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M. et al. Dissemination of Misinformative and Biased Information about Prostate Cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 564-567 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.056.
• 17 Ku S, Balasubramanian A, Yu J. et al. A systematic evaluation of youtube as an information source for male infertility. Int J Impot Res 2021; 33: 611-615 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-0322-9. (PMID: 32541795)
• 18 Verla W, Oosterlinck W, Spinoit AF. et al. A Comprehensive Review Emphasizing Anatomy, Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Male Urethral Stricture Disease. Biomed Res Int 2019; 2019: 9046430 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9046430. (PMID: 31139658)
• 19 Basile G, Karakiewicz PI, Tian Z. et al. The Impact of Surgical Volume on Perioperative Safety After Urethroplasty: a population-based study. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2022; DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04893-5. (PMID: 35622351)
• 20 Karabay E, Karsiyakali N, Kayar K. et al. Hypospadias surgery on YouTube: is it valid?. Minerva Pediatr (Torino) 2021; 73: 236-242 DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5276.19.05555-5. (PMID: 31352768)
• 21 Jones P, Rajasegaran A, Brassale S. et al. Assessment of the Educational Value of Distal Hypospadias Repair Videos on YouTube. Urology 2022; 159: 28-32 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.020. (PMID: 34461144)
• 22 Salama A, Panoch J, Bandali E. et al. Consulting "Dr. YouTube": an objective evaluation of hypospadias videos on a popular video-sharing website. J Pediatr Urol 2020; 16: 70-e71 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.11.011. (PMID: 31928900)
• 23 Eberhard DM, Simons GF, Fennig CD. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. In. 25th ed: SIL International. 2022