IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY? MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube Bilgi Kaynağı mı?
IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY? MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube Bilgi Kaynağı mı?
Yazar: Şam Özdemir, Merve; Özdemir, Harun
Dergi: Bozok Tıp Dergisi, Vol. 14 No. 3, 2024
Anahtar kelimeler: Radiology and Organ Imaging ; Radyoloji ve Organ Görüntüleme ; IS YOUTUBE REALLY A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON,MRI GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY?,MR Eşliğinde Prostat Biyopsisi Konusunda Youtube BilgiKaynağı mı?

ABSTRACTObjective: 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 informationof the British Association of Urological Surgeons for transrectal ultrasound-guided MRI fusion biopsy wasperformed. For MRI-guided prostate biopsy, four more questions were added to the MRI-guided prostatebiopsy criteria and reviewed by two authors.. The reliability and quality of the content of these videos includedin 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 preparedby non-physicians. The average duration of the videos was 9.8 minutes, and the average number of dailyviews was 14.3. The number of views varied between 19 and 710,399 (average: 21). While the average oflikes was 62.5, the average of comments was 4.3. The average number of views was 4.3. The score wasfound to be 3.54 ± 0.5 out of 5. The GQS average was calculated as 4.42 ± 0.56 out of 5. When the videosuploaded by physicians and non-physicians were compared, no statistically significant difference was foundin terms of the average duration of the videos, JAMA scores, or number of comments. The number of dailyviews, number of likes, total number of views, GQS, and scoring criteria were statistically higher in the videosprepared by non-physicians.Conclusion: Information about MRI-guided prostate biopsies on YouTube is not of a high enough standard toallow patients to make informed decisions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must produce high-quality,informative, patient-focused medical YouTube videos.

ABSTRACTObjective: 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 informationof the British Association of Urological Surgeons for transrectal ultrasound-guided MRI fusion biopsy wasperformed. For MRI-guided prostate biopsy, four more questions were added to the MRI-guided prostatebiopsy criteria and reviewed by two authors.. The reliability and quality of the content of these videos includedin 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 preparedby non-physicians. The average duration of the videos was 9.8 minutes, and the average number of dailyviews was 14.3. The number of views varied between 19 and 710,399 (average: 21). While the average oflikes was 62.5, the average of comments was 4.3. The average number of views was 4.3. The score wasfound to be 3.54 ± 0.5 out of 5. The GQS average was calculated as 4.42 ± 0.56 out of 5. When the videosuploaded by physicians and non-physicians were compared, no statistically significant difference was foundin terms of the average duration of the videos, JAMA scores, or number of comments. The number of dailyviews, number of likes, total number of views, GQS, and scoring criteria were statistically higher in the videosprepared by non-physicians.Conclusion: Information about MRI-guided prostate biopsies on YouTube is not of a high enough standard toallow patients to make informed decisions. Therefore, healthcare professionals must produce high-quality,informative, patient-focused medical YouTube videos.