Search

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the information provided in YouTube TM videos on phimosis. The term "phimosis" was searched on YouTube TM , and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audio/Visual Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections, good-quality score of minimum 70%) and misinformation scale (rated from 1 to 5) were used to assess video quality. Quality assessment was investigated over time. Of all, 60 were eligible for analysis. Healthcare providers were the authors of 75.0% of the videos, and 73.3% of the videos were patient-targeted. The median Understandability score was 42.9% (interquartile range [IQR]:34.5-58.9) and ranged from 28.6 to 42.9% (2013-2020). The median Actionability score was 50.0% (IQR:25.0-56.2) and ranged from 25.0 to 50.0% (2013-2020). The median misinformation score was 2.8/5 (IQR:1.6-3.6), and although the score fluctuated over time, the median score was 2.6 both in 2013 and in 2020. According to our results, although an increase of PEMAT over time was observed, the overall quality of the information uploaded on YouTube TM is low. Therefore, at present, YouTube TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on phimosis. Video producers should upload higher-quality videos to help physicians and patients in the decision-making process., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Several previous studies on YouTube™ on urological field have already been published. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the quality information of YouTube TM videos on testicular pain. Using Google Trends tool, the frequency of worldwide YouTube TM and Google Search on testicular pain was examined from 2010 to 2020. The keywords "testicular pain", "testicular ache" and "scrotal pain" were used on the YouTube platform and the first 100 YouTube TM videos were analyzed for each one. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audiovisual (A/V) Materials, the DISCERN score and Misinformation tool were used to assess video quality. According to YouTube™ Search the mean relative frequency search for "testicular pain" ranged from 10.5 to 30.0%. According to Google TM Search it ranged from 73.7 to 91.0%, Of all 300 videos, 117 were eligible for the analysis. The median number of views, thumbs-up and thumbs-down was respectively: 47060 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6297.0-144188.0), 289 (IQR = 40-912) and 19 (IQR = 4-53). Of all videos, 68.4% and 31.6% were produced respectively by Medical Doctors and Other. The median PEMAT Actionability and Understandability scores were 66.7% and 66.7%, respectively. The median DISCERN score ranged from 1 to 5, with an overall median score of 3, defined from question 16. The median misinformation score ranged from 2 to 5. In conclusion, an increased interest on testicular pain was recorded on both YouTube TM and Google search during the last decade. However, according to the quality assessment tools used, YouTube™ users cannot get trustful and exhaustive information on testicular pain. Therefore, authors with/without medical background should improve the quality of information on YouTube™ videos., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Objective: The Internet is an important and easily accessible source of information. The aim of the current study was to investigate the quality of YouTube videos on cystoscopy and to establish if they can be used as a reliable information tool for internet users., Materials and Methods: The search term "cystoscopy" was used on YouTube platform and the first 120 YouTube videos were analyzed. To assess the video quality Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audiovisual (A/V) Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections), Misinformation score and Global Quality Score (GQS) were used., Results: Of all 120 videos, 72 were included in the analyses. Of all videos, 59.7% (n = 43), and 40.3% (n = 29) were targeted to General Public and Healthcare Workers. Moreover, "technical aspects" was the main topic addressed (n = 29, 40.3%). The median PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 50.0% (IQR: 39.1-70.0) and 66.7% (IQR: 33.3- 100.0), respectively. The median Misinformation score ranged from 1.0 to 3.0. According to GQS, 22 (30.6%), 26 (36.1%), 16 (22.2%), 8 (11.1%) videos were poor, generally poor, moderate, and good, respectively. No video was evaluated as excellent., Conclusions: Today, YouTube videos on cystoscopy are more frequently uploaded by healthcare workers, who share information about specific aspects of this procedure. However, the quality of YouTube contents on cystoscopy is still poor. Therefore, currently users interested in cystoscopy cannot rely on YouTube to get good informative material on this topic. In consequence, future authors should focus on improving the quality of video contents on cystoscopy.

Aim: To evaluate the quality of YouTube™ videos on bladder pain syndrome (BPS) and to investigate whether they can be used as a reliable source of information., Methods: The search term "bladder pain syndrome" was used on YouTube TM platform. The first 100 videos were selected. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V), Global Quality Score (GQS), Misinformation tool, and DISCERN score were used to assess videos' quality content. Pearson's test was used to assess potential correlations between variables., Results: Seventy-nine videos were suitable for the analyses. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability score and PEMAT A/V Actionability score were 66.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 46.2-100.0) and 75.0% (IQR: 37.5-100.0), respectively. According to GQS, 26 (32.9%), 32 (40.5%), 3 (3.8%), 15 (19.0%), and 3 (3.8%) videos were excellent, good, moderate, generally poor, and poor, respectively. According to Misinformation tool, of all videos, 81% (n = 64), 6.3% (n = 5), 5.1% (n = 4), 5.1% (n = 4), 2.5% (n = 2) had respectively no, very little, moderate, high, and extreme misinformation. The overall median DISCERN score ranged from 5.0 (IQR: 2.0-5.0) to 5.0 (IQR: 5.0-5.0). A positive statistically significant correlation was found between video length and PEMAT A/V Understandability (r = 0.27, p = 0.01), video length and PEMAT A/V Actionability (r = .26, p = 0.02), and video length and DISCERN Question 16 (r = 0.28, p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Nowaday, the overall quality of YouTube TM videos on BPS have been evaluated good according to PEMAT A/V, GQS, Misinformation tool, and DISCERN score. It is possible to assume that YouTube TM may be considered as a reliable source of information on BPS., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: The Internet is an important and easily accessible source of information. The aim of the current study was to investigate the quality of YouTube videos on cystoscopy and to establish if they can be used as a reliable information tool for internet users. Materials and methods: The search term "cystoscopy" was used on YouTube platform and the first 120 YouTube videos were analyzed. To assess the video quality Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audiovisual (A/V) Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections), Misinformation score and Global Quality Score (GQS) were used. Results: Of all 120 videos, 72 were included in the analyses. Of all videos, 59.7% (n = 43), and 40.3% (n = 29) were targeted to General Public and Healthcare Workers. Moreover, "technical aspects" was the main topic addressed (n = 29, 40.3%). The median PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 50.0% (IQR: 39.1-70.0) and 66.7% (IQR: 33.3-100.0), respectively. The median Misinformation score ranged from 1.0 to 3.0. According to GQS, 22 (30.6%), 26 (36.1%), 16 (22.2%), 8 (11.1%) videos were poor, generally poor, moderate, and good, respectively. No video was evaluated as excellent. Conclusions: Today, YouTube videos on cystoscopy are more frequently uploaded by healthcare workers, who share information about specific aspects of this procedure. However, the quality of YouTube contents on cystoscopy is still poor. Therefore, currently users interested in cystoscopy cannot rely on YouTube to get good informative material on this topic. In consequence, future authors should focus on improving the quality of video contents on cystoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the quality of YouTube™ videos on bladder pain syndrome (BPS) and to investigate whether they can be used as a reliable source of information. Methods: The search term "bladder pain syndrome" was used on YouTubeTM platform. The first 100 videos were selected. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio‐visual content (PEMAT A/V), Global Quality Score (GQS), Misinformation tool, and DISCERN score were used to assess videos' quality content. Pearson's test was used to assess potential correlations between variables. Results: Seventy‐nine videos were suitable for the analyses. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability score and PEMAT A/V Actionability score were 66.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 46.2–100.0) and 75.0% (IQR: 37.5–100.0), respectively. According to GQS, 26 (32.9%), 32 (40.5%), 3 (3.8%), 15 (19.0%), and 3 (3.8%) videos were excellent, good, moderate, generally poor, and poor, respectively. According to Misinformation tool, of all videos, 81% (n = 64), 6.3% (n = 5), 5.1% (n = 4), 5.1% (n = 4), 2.5% (n = 2) had respectively no, very little, moderate, high, and extreme misinformation. The overall median DISCERN score ranged from 5.0 (IQR: 2.0–5.0) to 5.0 (IQR: 5.0–5.0). A positive statistically significant correlation was found between video length and PEMAT A/V Understandability (r = 0.27, p = 0.01), video length and PEMAT A/V Actionability (r =.26, p = 0.02), and video length and DISCERN Question 16 (r = 0.28, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Nowaday, the overall quality of YouTubeTM videos on BPS have been evaluated good according to PEMAT A/V, GQS, Misinformation tool, and DISCERN score. It is possible to assume that YouTubeTM may be considered as a reliable source of information on BPS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]