Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 29 (11), 3472-3477

Comparison of New Era's Education Platforms, YouTube® and WebSurg®, in Sleeve Gastrectomy

Affiliations

Comparison of New Era's Education Platforms, YouTube® and WebSurg®, in Sleeve Gastrectomy

Murat Ferhat Ferhatoglu et al. Obes Surg.

Abstract

Introduction: The Internet is a widely used resource for obtaining medical information. However, the quality of information on online platforms is still debated. Our goal in this quality-controlled WebSurg® and YouTube®-based study was to compare these two online video platforms in terms of the accuracy and quality of information about sleeve gastrectomy videos.

Methods: Most viewed (popular) videos returned by YouTube® search engine in response to the keyword "sleeve gastrectomy" were included in the study. The educational accuracy and quality of the videos were evaluated according to known scoring systems. A novel scoring system measured technical quality. The ten most viewed (popular) videos in WebSurg® in response to the keyword "sleeve gastrectomy" were compared with ten YouTube® videos with the highest educational/technical scores.

Results: Scoring systems measuring the educational accuracy and quality of WebSurg® videos were significantly higher than ten YouTube® videos which have the most top technical scores (p < 0.05), and no significant difference was found in the assessment of ten YouTube® videos that have the highest technical ratings compared with WebSurg® videos (p 0.481).

Conclusions: WebSurg® videos, which were passed through a reviewing process and were mostly prepared by academicians, remained below the expected quality. The main limitation of WebSurg® and YouTube® is the lack of information on preoperative and postoperative processes.

Keywords: Continuing surgical education; Internet; Sleeve gastrectomy; WebSurg; YouTube.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Nov 15;43(22):E1334-E1339 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 May-Jun;8(3):e21-6 - PubMed

References

    1. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Apr 14;20(14):4066-70 - PubMed

References

    1. Surg Innov. 2011 Mar;18(1):8-14 - PubMed

References

    1. JAMA. 2007 Dec 5;298(21):2482-4 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015 Aug;89(2):92-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Apr;25(2):203-5 - PubMed

References

    1. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016 May 1;18(3):230-1 - PubMed

References

    1. J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Feb;216(2):252-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Sep;102(9):2070-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2019 May;29(5):1477-1484 - PubMed

References

    1. Health Informatics J. 2015 Sep;21(3):173-94 - PubMed

References

    1. Urology. 2011 Mar;77(3):558-62 - PubMed

References

    1. J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Apr;49(4):586-9 - PubMed

References

    1. J Surg Educ. 2016 Nov - Dec;73(6):1072-1076 - PubMed

References

    1. Child Care Health Dev. 2017 Jul;43(4):499-503 - PubMed

References

    1. J Cancer Educ. 2018 Sep 21;:null - PubMed

References

    1. Circulation. 2014 Jun 24;129(25 Suppl 2):S102-38 - PubMed

References

    1. JAMA. 2008 Mar 26;299(12):1424-5; author reply 1425 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2017 Sep;27(9):2279-2289 - PubMed

References

    1. JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Anat Sci Educ. 2016 Jan-Feb;9(1):90-6 - PubMed

References

    1. J Electrocardiol. 2014 Jan-Feb;47(1):113-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):e1-3 - PubMed

References

    1. N Am J Med Sci. 2015 Jul;7(7):306-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Jan;78(1):65-70 - PubMed

References

    1. Scand J Urol. 2015 Apr;49(2):189-92 - PubMed

References

    1. Obes Surg. 2018 Mar;28(3):712-716 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback