A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Reliability and Usefulness of YouTube as a Source of Informative Media for Arthroscopic Tennis Elbow Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Published Videos. | LitMetric

Aims And Objectives: Over the last decade, YouTube has been extensively used as a learning tool for both physicians and patients, but the reliability of this information remains questionable. The purpose of this study was to look for the reliability and quality of videos on tennis elbow arthroscopy on YouTube.

Materials And Methods: We used three search terms on YouTube "tennis elbow arthroscopic surgery," "Arthroscopic ECRB release," and "Arthroscopic debridement for tennis elbow," and screened the first 50 videos according to popularity. The videos were included from 2009 to date. Only videos in the English language were included. Repeated videos and videos without sound were excluded. A total of 74 videos were selected for this study and reliability was checked with DISCERN and journal of the American medical association (JAMA) scores. The quality was assessed with the Global Quality Score Criteria (GQSC) score and TEARS (a novel score). Popularity was tested with the video power index (VPI). A pilot study was conducted using 20 videos to validate the TEARS score.

Results: In the pilot study, TEARS showed results in accordance with other scores used. The average number of views was 41,644.97, and the average duration was 5.03 ± 3.39 years. The mean value of DISCERN and JAMA was found to be 21.47 ± 6.28 and 1.05 ± 0.92, respectively. GQSC, TEARS, and VPI were found to be 1.70 ± 0.82, 4.17 ± 2.62, and 769,936.9 ± 6,538,851.37.

Conclusion: Most of the videos were educational and physicians were targeted. The USA was the major contributor to such videos. The reliability and quality of these videos were found to be of poor quality. The video popularity was however found to be relatively high. The inter-observer reliability was good. Based on the findings, we conclude that the videos are not reliable and could not be used for learning.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936886PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jwas.jwas_18_23DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

videos
13
tennis elbow
8
study reliability
8
reliability quality
8
quality videos
8
pilot study
8
reliability
6
quality
5
reliability youtube
4
youtube source
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!