YouTube Provides Poor Information Regarding Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and Reconstruction

Overview

Journal Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2017 Mar 19

PMID 28314888

Citations 55

Authors

J T Cassidy

E Fitzgerald

E S Cassidy

M Cleary

D P Byrne

B M Devitt

J F Baker

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: YouTube is a global medium used predominantly by young adults (aged 18-49 years). This study examined the quality of YouTube information regarding ACL injury and reconstruction.

Methods: YouTube was searched on the 13th of June 2015 for "ACL" and "anterior cruciate ligament" with/without associated terms of "injury", "reconstruction", and "surgery". Videos were evaluated by two independent reviewers [EF (Reviewer 1), (Reviewer 2)] using two recognized information scoring systems (Modified DISCERN (MD) 0-5 and JAMA Benchmark 0-4) and an adaptation of a score designed for written ACL information [ACL Specific Score (ASS) 0-25]. The ASS categorized scores as very good (21-25), good (16-20), moderate (11-15), poor (6-10), and very poor (0-5). Number of views/likes/dislikes, animation, and continent of origin and source (e.g., corporate/educational) were recorded. Correlation of video characteristics with number of views was examined using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by Interclass Correlation Co-efficient (ICC).

Results: Following a filtering process of the 964,770 identified videos, 39 videos were retained. The mean MD score was 2.3 (standard deviation (SD) ±0.9) for Reviewer 1 and 2.2 (SD ±0.9) for Reviewer 2 (ICC = 0.7). The mean JAMA score was 2.5(SD ±0.7) for Reviewer 1 and 2.3 (SD ±0.7) for Reviewer 2 (ICC = 0.8). The mean ASS was 6.3 (SD ±3.5) for Reviewer 1 and 4.6 (SD ±2.9) for Reviewer 2 (ICC = 0.9). Five videos achieved moderate score (13%), while 15 (38%) and 19 (49%) scored as poor and very poor, respectively. There was no correlation between number of views and video quality/video source for any scoring system.

Conclusion: The majority of videos viewed on YouTube regarding ACL injury and treatment are of low quality.

Citing Articles

Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube as a Source of Patient Information on de Quervain's Tenosynovitis.

Kim J, Hoy J, Shuman S, Ahmad F, Simcock X J Wrist Surg. 2025; 14(1):42-48.

PMID: 39896907 PMC: 11781845. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777017.

Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for Cancer Using a Newly Developed Tool.

Huchel S, Grumt A, Keinki C, Buentzel J, Kasmann L, Huebner J Integr Cancer Ther. 2024; 23:15347354241293417.

PMID: 39468423 PMC: 11528743. DOI: 10.1177/15347354241293417.

Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos As Information Source for Breast Self-Examination.

Bu Bshait M, Almaqhawi A Cureus. 2024; 16(9):e70227.

PMID: 39463531 PMC: 11512166. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.70227.

The quality and reliability of short videos about thyroid nodules on BiliBili and TikTok: Cross-sectional study.

Chen Y, Wang Q, Huang X, Zhang Y, Li Y, Ni T Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241288831.

PMID: 39381823 PMC: 11459542. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241288831.

Evaluation of Videos Related to Vaginal Cone Usage on YouTube as an Online Information Source.

Tufekci B, Basgut O, Bayrak O, Bulut A Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 35(12):2403-2411.

PMID: 39316112 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05932-y.

References

MacLeod M, Hoppe D, Simunovic N, Bhandari M, Philippon M, Ayeni O . YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy. 2014; 31(1):136-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.06.009. View

Chalil Madathil K, Rivera-Rodriguez A, Greenstein J, Gramopadhye A . Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2014; 21(3):173-94. DOI: 10.1177/1460458213512220. View

Sanders T, Kremers H, Bryan A, Larson D, Dahm D, Levy B . Incidence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears and Reconstruction: A 21-Year Population-Based Study. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44(6):1502-7. DOI: 10.1177/0363546516629944. View

Elhassan Y, Sheridan G, Nassiri M, Osman M, Kiely P, Noel J . Discectomy-related information on the internet: does the quality follow the surge?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(2):121-5. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000689. View

Cassidy J, Baker J . Orthopaedic Patient Information on the World Wide Web: An Essential Review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98(4):325-38. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01189. View

Bruce-Brand R, Baker J, Byrne D, Hogan N, McCarthy T . Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the internet. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29(6):1095-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.02.007. View

Brooks F, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy M . YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014; 96(2):144-6. PMC: 4474244. DOI: 10.1308/003588414X13814021676396. View

Singh A, Singh S, Paul Singh P . YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call?. J Rheumatol. 2012; 39(5):899-903. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.111114. View

Nason G, Baker J, Byrne D, Noel J, Moore D, Kiely P . Scoliosis-specific information on the internet: has the "information highway" led to better information provision?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(21):E1364-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826619b5. View

10.

Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz K, Windhager R . YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(10):1995-2002. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3174-7. View

11.

Silberg W, LUNDBERG G, Musacchio R . 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(15):1244-5. View

12.

Garrett Jr W, Swiontkowski M, Weinstein J, Callaghan J, Rosier R, Berry D . American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Practice of the Orthopaedic Surgeon: Part-II, certification examination case mix. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(3):660-7. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01208. View

13.

CHARNOCK D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R . DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53(2):105-11. PMC: 1756830. DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105. View

14.

Staunton P, Baker J, Green J, Devitt A . Online Curves: A Quality Analysis of Scoliosis Videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(23):1857-61. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001137. View

15.

Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M . Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e82469. PMC: 3867348. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082469. View