↓ Skip to main content

Direct ophthalmoscopy on YouTube: analysis of instructional YouTube videos’ content and approach to visualization

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Direct ophthalmoscopy on YouTube: analysis of instructional YouTube videos’ content and approach to visualization
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s111648
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yousif Subhi, Nanna Jo Borgersen, Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen, Lars Konge, Torben Lykke Sørensen, Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen

Abstract

Direct ophthalmoscopy is well-suited for video-based instruction, particularly if the videos enable the student to see what the examiner sees when performing direct ophthalmoscopy. We evaluated the pedagogical effectiveness of instructional YouTube videos on direct ophthalmoscopy by evaluating their content and approach to visualization. In order to synthesize main themes and points for direct ophthalmoscopy, we formed a broad panel consisting of a medical student, junior and senior physicians, and took into consideration book chapters targeting medical students and physicians in general. We then systematically searched YouTube. Two authors reviewed eligible videos to assess eligibility and extract data on video statistics, content, and approach to visualization. Correlations between video statistics and contents were investigated using two-tailed Spearman's correlation. We screened 7,640 videos, of which 27 were found eligible for this study. Overall, a median of 12 out of 18 points (interquartile range: 8-14 key points) were covered; no videos covered all of the 18 points assessed. We found the most difficulties in the approach to visualization of how to approach the patient and how to examine the fundus. Time spent on fundus examination correlated with the number of views per week (Spearman's ρ=0.53; P=0.029). Videos may help overcome the pedagogical issues in teaching direct ophthalmoscopy; however, the few available videos on YouTube fail to address this particular issue adequately. There is a need for high-quality videos that include relevant points, provide realistic visualization of the examiner's view, and give particular emphasis on fundus examination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 44%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#9,995,753
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,036
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,092
of 262,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#44
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 262,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.