Suppr超能文献

一项评估YouTube上专注于泌尿外科内容的研究可靠性的系统评价。

A systematic review assessing the reliability of studies focusing on urological content on YouTube.

作者信息

Collà Ruvolo Claudia, Morra Simone, Di Bello Francesco, Cilio Simone, Fraia Agostino, Polverino Federico, Creta Massimiliano, Longo Nicola, Imbimbo Ciro, Checcucci Enrico, Puliatti Stefano, Dell'oglio Paolo, Califano Gianluigi

机构信息

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy -

出版信息

Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2025 Apr;77(2):192-201. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05994-9.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, several publications have focused on analyzing the quality of medical content on YouTube. The current systematic review aimed to summarize and analyze the available studies examining YouTube video content in the urological field.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This is a systematic review including studies examining urological content uploaded on the YouTube platform published before November 2023. The following keywords were combined to capture relevant publications with a title/abstract search: ("Urology" OR "Andrology") AND ("YouTube" OR "Social media").

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

According to the inclusion criteria, 84 studies were included. Of all, 74 (88%) studies were published after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. A total of 52 (62%) studies used the DISCERN score, 29 (35%) the PEMAT A/V score, 30 (36%) the GQS, 23 (27%) the Misinformation score, 14 (17%) the Likert scale, and 13 (15%) the JAMA score. According to the conclusion, 62 (74%) studies reported poor quality results. Among all, only 10 (12%) studies respected our criteria of best quality methodology, defined as: 1) description of the research time frame; 2) use of incognito status; 3) the description of the inter-rater variability between reviewers; 4) use of at least one quality assessment tool.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic review highlights significant variability in results and methodologies across studies on the quality analysis of urological content on YouTube. The official urological community should establish guidelines for authors, aiming to enhance the reliability and importance of such publications as valuable resources for daily clinical practice.

摘要

引言

近年来,有几篇出版物专注于分析YouTube上医学内容的质量。当前的系统评价旨在总结和分析现有研究,这些研究考察了泌尿外科领域的YouTube视频内容。

证据获取

这是一项系统评价,纳入了2023年11月之前发表的、考察在YouTube平台上上传的泌尿外科内容的研究。通过标题/摘要检索,将以下关键词组合起来以获取相关出版物:(“泌尿外科”或“男科学”)与(“YouTube”或“社交媒体”)。

证据综合

根据纳入标准,共纳入84项研究。其中,74项(88%)研究在新冠疫情爆发后发表。共有52项(62%)研究使用了DISCERN评分,29项(35%)使用了PEMAT A/V评分,30项(36%)使用了GQS,23项(27%)使用了错误信息评分,14项(17%)使用了李克特量表,13项(15%)使用了JAMA评分。根据结论,62项(74%)研究报告了质量较差的结果。其中,只有10项(12%)研究符合我们定义的最佳质量方法标准,即:1)研究时间框架的描述;2)使用隐身状态;3)评审者之间评分者间变异性的描述;4)使用至少一种质量评估工具。

结论

该系统评价凸显了YouTube上泌尿外科内容质量分析研究在结果和方法上的显著差异。泌尿外科官方团体应为作者制定指南,旨在提高此类出版物作为日常临床实践宝贵资源的可靠性和重要性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验