Youtube as a source of information vagal nerve stimulation: A quality analysis
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the quality of available information on Youtube videos about VNS as a "source of health information" for patients with drug resistant epilepsy.Methods Youtube videos were searched and screened using the terms "VNS for seizures," and "VNS surgery," "VNS epilepsy" in May 2023. The quality of the videos was evaluated the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) and Global Quality Scale (GQS). The videos were analyzed in terms of content, accuracy, reliability, and quality.Results A total of 104 videos were searched. After excluding duplicate or inappropriate videos, 51 videos were analyzed. Youtube videos about vagal nerve stimulation are mostly on general information, surgical procedures, patient experiences and magnet use. When video sources are examined according to the quality, according to GQS, 75 % of high quality videos were narrated by physicians, all intermediate quality videos were narrated by physicians, and low quality ones narrated by physicians were 47.4 % and 28.9 % by the patients. All of the videos narrated by the patients were of low quality. There was a significant and strong correlation between GQS and Discern score (r = 0.807, p < 0.001). Only GQS scores of videos with different content were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Two pediatric neurologists independently reviewed the videos and classified the videos as useful or misleading according to the GQS, DISCERN scala. The overall κ value for interobserver consistency according to Global Quality Scale was 0.781 (p < 0.001). (95 % confidence interval), indicating a very good level of agreement.Conclusion Youtube videos may provide a worthful source for patients and parents seeking to find more information about VNS However incorrect information could easily be disseminated by high number of views of videos with low quality. High skilled and experienced professionals should create videos on Youtube to ensure that patients and parents can access more useful, high-quality, and accurate information on VNS.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evaluations of patient-generated video content highlighted unrealistic expectations about seizure freedom rates for VNS, a finding consistent with the overstated efficacy claims observed in the surgical and neuromodulation treatment category.
“Regarding vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), evaluations of patient-generated video content38 highlighted unrealistic expectations about seizure freedom rates, a finding consistent with the overstated efficacy claims we observed in our surgical and neuromodulation treatment category.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Özçelik, A., Özbaş, C., & Arhan, E.
- Affiliations
- Gaziantep University (TR)
- Gazi University (TR)
- Corresponding author
- Arhan, Ebru
- Venue
- Epilepsy & Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-02
- Volume
- 151
- Pages
- 109597
- ISSN
- 1525-5050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4390600571
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Epilepsy & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
- Keywords
- vagus nerve stimulation, YouTube, online health information quality, drug-resistant epilepsy, DISCERN, Global Quality Scale, video reliability, interobserver agreement
- MeSH terms
- Benzophenones, Child, Humans, Video Recording, Reproducibility of Results, Information Dissemination, Vagus Nerve Stimulation, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review