IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY? MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube Bilgi Kaynağı mı?

Merve Şam Özdemir; Harun Özdemir

Makale detayları

IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY? MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube Bilgi Kaynağı mı?

Yazarlar:

Merve Şam Özdemir | Harun Özdemir

Yayıncı:

Yozgat Bozok University

Ana Başlıklar:

Radyoloji ve Organ Görüntüleme

Dergi:

Bozok Tıp Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 3, pp.184-189

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001327185

pISSN:

2146-4006

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the overall quality of the information in YouTube videos about prostate MRI-guided biopsy and whether it describes the procedure. Material and Methods: The terms  MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate and MRI targeted prostate biopsy were searched on YouTube. The first 118 videos of the results were selected, and the written information of the British Association of Urological Surgeons for transrectal ultrasound-guided MRI fusion biopsy was performed. For MRI-guided prostate biopsy, four more questions were added to the MRI-guided prostate biopsy criteria and reviewed by two authors.. The reliability and quality of the content of these videos included in the study were evaluated using JAMA and GQS scores. Results: A total of 118 videos were reviewed; 3 videos were rated excellent and 56 videos were rated very poor. 91 of the videos 77 were prepared for physicians, and the remaining videos were prepared by non-physicians. The average duration of the videos was 9.8 minutes, and the average number of daily views was 14.3. The number of views varied between 19 and 710,399 average: 21. While the average of likes was 62.5, the average of comments was 4.3. The average number of views was 4.3. The score was found to be 3.54  0.5 out of 5. The GQS average was calculated as 4.42  0.56 out of 5. When the videos uploaded by physicians and non-physicians were compared, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average duration of the videos, JAMA scores, or number of comments. The number of daily views, number of likes, total number of views, GQS, and scoring criteria were statistically higher in the videos prepared by non-physicians. Conclusion: Information about MRI-guided prostate biopsies on YouTube is not of a high enough standard to allow patients to make informed decisions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must produce high-quality, informative, patient-focused medical YouTube videos.

 ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the overall quality of the information in YouTube videos about prostate MRI-guided biopsy and whether it describes the procedure. Material and Methods: The terms  MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate and MRI targeted prostate biopsy were searched on YouTube. The first 118 videos of the results were selected, and the written information of the British Association of Urological Surgeons for transrectal ultrasound-guided MRI fusion biopsy was performed. For MRI-guided prostate biopsy, four more questions were added to the MRI-guided prostate biopsy criteria and reviewed by two authors.. The reliability and quality of the content of these videos included in the study were evaluated using JAMA and GQS scores. Results: A total of 118 videos were reviewed; 3 videos were rated excellent and 56 videos were rated very poor. 91 of the videos 77 were prepared for physicians, and the remaining videos were prepared by non-physicians. The average duration of the videos was 9.8 minutes, and the average number of daily views was 14.3. The number of views varied between 19 and 710,399 average: 21. While the average of likes was 62.5, the average of comments was 4.3. The average number of views was 4.3. The score was found to be 3.54  0.5 out of 5. The GQS average was calculated as 4.42  0.56 out of 5. When the videos uploaded by physicians and non-physicians were compared, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average duration of the videos, JAMA scores, or number of comments. The number of daily views, number of likes, total number of views, GQS, and scoring criteria were statistically higher in the videos prepared by non-physicians. Conclusion: Information about MRI-guided prostate biopsies on YouTube is not of a high enough standard to allow patients to make informed decisions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must produce high-quality, informative, patient-focused medical YouTube videos.

 ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the overall quality of the information in YouTube videos about prostate MRI-guided biopsy and whether it describes the procedure. Material and Methods: The terms  MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate and MRI targeted prostate biopsy were searched on YouTube. The first 118 videos of the results were selected, and the written information of the British Association of Urological Surgeons for transrectal ultrasound-guided MRI fusion biopsy was performed. For MRI-guided prostate biopsy, four more questions were added to the MRI-guided prostate biopsy criteria and reviewed by two authors.. The reliability and quality of the content of these videos included in the study were evaluated using JAMA and GQS scores. Results: A total of 118 videos were reviewed; 3 videos were rated excellent and 56 videos were rated very poor. 91 of the videos 77 were prepared for physicians, and the remaining videos were prepared by non-physicians. The average duration of the videos was 9.8 minutes, and the average number of daily views was 14.3. The number of views varied between 19 and 710,399 average: 21. While the average of likes was 62.5, the average of comments was 4.3. The average number of views was 4.3. The score was found to be 3.54  0.5 out of 5. The GQS average was calculated as 4.42  0.56 out of 5. When the videos uploaded by physicians and non-physicians were compared, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average duration of the videos, JAMA scores, or number of comments. The number of daily views, number of likes, total number of views, GQS, and scoring criteria were statistically higher in the videos prepared by non-physicians. Conclusion: Information about MRI-guided prostate biopsies on YouTube is not of a high enough standard to allow patients to make informed decisions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must produce high-quality, informative, patient-focused medical YouTube videos.

 ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the overall quality of the information in YouTube videos about prostate MRI-guided biopsy and whether it describes the procedure. Material and Methods: The terms  MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate and MRI targeted prostate biopsy were searched on YouTube. The first 118 videos of the results were selected, and the written information of the British Association of Urological Surgeons for transrectal ultrasound-guided MRI fusion biopsy was performed. For MRI-guided prostate biopsy, four more questions were added to the MRI-guided prostate biopsy criteria and reviewed by two authors.. The reliability and quality of the content of these videos included in the study were evaluated using JAMA and GQS scores. Results: A total of 118 videos were reviewed; 3 videos were rated excellent and 56 videos were rated very poor. 91 of the videos 77 were prepared for physicians, and the remaining videos were prepared by non-physicians. The average duration of the videos was 9.8 minutes, and the average number of daily views was 14.3. The number of views varied between 19 and 710,399 average: 21. While the average of likes was 62.5, the average of comments was 4.3. The average number of views was 4.3. The score was found to be 3.54  0.5 out of 5. The GQS average was calculated as 4.42  0.56 out of 5. When the videos uploaded by physicians and non-physicians were compared, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average duration of the videos, JAMA scores, or number of comments. The number of daily views, number of likes, total number of views, GQS, and scoring criteria were statistically higher in the videos prepared by non-physicians. Conclusion: Information about MRI-guided prostate biopsies on YouTube is not of a high enough standard to allow patients to make informed decisions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must produce high-quality, informative, patient-focused medical YouTube videos.

Makale detayları

IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY? MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube Bilgi Kaynağı mı?

Yazarlar: Merve Şam Özdemir | Harun Özdemir

Yayıncı: Yozgat Bozok University

Ana Başlıklar: Radyoloji ve Organ Görüntüleme

Dergi: Bozok Tıp Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 3, pp.184-189

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 9/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001327185

pISSN: 2146-4006

IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON

MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY?

MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube Bilgi Kaynağı mı?

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Merve Şam Özdemir | Harun Özdemir

Yayıncı:

Yozgat Bozok University

Ana Başlıklar:

Radyoloji ve Organ Görüntüleme

Dergi:

Bozok Tıp Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 3, pp.184-189

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001327185

pISSN:

2146-4006