| Title |
YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Orthopaedics, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00264-016-3174-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrich Koller, Wenzel Waldstein, Klaus-Dieter Schatz, Reinhard Windhager |
| Abstract |
YouTube is increasingly becoming a key source for people to satisfy the need for additional information concerning their medical condition. This study analyses the completeness of accurate information found on YouTube pertaining to hip arthritis. The present study analyzed 133 YouTube videos using the search terms: hip arthritis, hip arthritis symptoms, hip arthritis diagnosis, hip arthritis treatment and hip replacement. Two quality assessment checklists with a scale of 0 to 12 points were developed to evaluate available video content for the diagnosis and the treatment of hip arthritis. Videos were grouped into poor quality (grade 0-3), moderate quality (grade 4-7) and excellent quality (grade 8-12), respectively. Three independent observers assessed all videos using the new grading system and independently scored all videos. Discrepancies regarding the categories were clarified by consensus discussion. For intra-observer reliabilities, grading was performed at two occasions separated by four weeks. Eighty-four percent (n = 112) had a poor diagnostic information quality, 14% (n = 19) a moderate quality and only 2% (n = 2) an excellent quality, respectively. In 86% (n = 114), videos provided poor treatment information quality. Eleven percent (n = 15) of videos had a moderate quality and only 3% (n = 4) an excellent quality, respectively. The present study demonstrates that YouTube is a poor source for accurate information pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. These finding are of high relevance for clinicians as videos are going to become the primary source of information for patients. Therefore, high quality educational videos are needed to further guide patients on the way from the diagnosis of hip arthritis to its proper treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 42% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,715,943
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#847
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,662
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,433 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.