KASMEJ
Kastamonu Medical Journal

Kastamonu Medical Journal regularly publishes internationally qualified issues in the field of Medicine in the light of up-to-date information.

eISSN: 2757-9336
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Online Manuscript System

Index
Original Article
Are the anal sphincter repair videos on YouTube™ informative? Two surgical department view
Abstract
Aims: YouTube™ remains the world’s most visited video site, and the number of hits for videos containing health information is increasing day by day. The fact that videos uploaded to the platform are not subject to medical supervision before uploading may lead to misinformation or incomplete information. This article aims to evaluate the quality level of anal sphincter repair (ASR) videos uploaded to YouTube™.
Methods: The study was cross-sectional and 52 videos were analysed. The quality of the videos was assessed by 2 surgeons using the global quality score (GQS), modified DISCERN and anal sphincter repair YouTube score (ASRYS). Video duration (seconds), time since upload (months), number of views/comments/likes/dislikes were analysed.
Results: The majority of the videos (38.46%) were uploaded by doctors, while the rest were uploaded by hospitals and midwives. The mean GQS score was 2.56±1.14, modified DISCERN score was 2.77±1.08 and ASR score was 5.63±2.79. The GQS, modified DISCERN and ASR YouTube scores of the videos produced by doctors were significantly higher than those of the videos produced by both midwives and hospitals (p=0.001). According to the correlation analysis, significant positive changes vary between GQS, Modified DISCERN and ASRYS (p=0.001). Kappa Index analyses for three evaluations indicated high agreement. GQS showed a Kappa of 0.923 (SE=0.042, T=11.921, p=0.001), modified DISCERN a Kappa of 0.948 (SE=0.036, T=12.086, p=0.001), and ASRYS a Kappa of 0.936 (SE=0.036, T=20.151, p=0.001).
Conclusion: Video content on ASR reviewed from YouTube was largely inadequate. Information provided by physicians about the disease and treatment options was statistically more successful and inadequate. Either a primary role should be taken in uploading high quality videos or audit mechanisms should be established to ensure the safety and accuracy of the information.

Keywords : Anal sphincter, internet, Youtube video

Download Article


1. Arthurs J, Drakopoulou S, Gandini A. Researching YouTube. Convergence. 2018;24(1):3-15. doi:10.1177/1354856517737222
2. Thubert T, Cardaillac C, Fritel X, Winer N, Dochez V. Definitions, epidemiologie et facteurs de risque des lésions perineales du 3e et 4e degres. RPC Prevention et protection perineale en obstetrique CNGOF. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018;46(12):913-921. doi:10.1016/j.gofs.2018. 10.028
3. Stock L, Basham E, Gossett DR, Lewicky-Gaupp C. Factors associated with wound complications in women with obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:327.e1-327.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.12.025
4. Goldaber KG, Wendel PJ, McIntire DD, et al. Postpartum perineal morbidity after fourth-degree perineal repair. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 1993;168(2):489-493. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(93)90478-2
5. Insua-Pereira I, Ferreira PC, Teixeira S, Barreiro D, Silva Á. Fournier’s gangrene: a review of reconstructive options. Cent European J Urol. 2020;73(1):74-79. doi:10.5173/ceju.2020.0060
6. Taithongchai A, Veiga SI, Sultan AH, Thakar R. The consequences of undiagnosed obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) following vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(3):635-641. doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04033-5
7. Roper JC, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Under-classified obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(6):1473-1479. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-05051-y
8. Fernando RJ, Sultan AH, Radley S, Jones PW, Johanson RB. Management of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review & national practice survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2(1):9. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-2-9
9. Pinta T, Kylänpää-Bäck ML, Salmi T, Järvinen HJ, Luukkonen P. Delayed sphincter repair for obstetric ruptures: analysis of failure. Colorectal Dis. 2003;5(1):73-78. doi:10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.00408.x
10. Kirss J, Pinta T, Böckelman C, Victorzon M. Factors predicting a failed primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injury. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(9):1063-1069. doi:10.1111/aogs.12909
11. Bal A, Çolakoğlu MK, Öter V, Pişkin E, Bostancı EB. Are YouTube videos sufficient for educational purposes for robotic right hemicolectomy learning and has complete mesocolic excision changed that? Turk J Gastroenterol. 2023;34(12):1220-1226. doi:10.5152/tjg.2023.22827
12. Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Filiz Aİ, Kebudi A. Comparison of new era’s education platforms, YouTube® and WebSurg®, in sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2019;29(11):3472-3477. doi:10.1007/s11695-019-04008-x
13. Gül MC. Analysis of Turkish content endoscopic ultrasonography videos on YouTube: what is the level of information? By whom are they uploaded? Europeanat Health Sci J. 2023;1(2):50-55. doi:10.5281/zenodo. 10268276
14. Doğru Ş, Akkuş F, Altınordu Atcı A. Is YouTube effective on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. J Biotechnol Strategic Health Res. 2022; 6(1):51-57. doi:10.34084/bshr.1053290
15. Akkuş M, Aydoğan Avşar P. What is the role of YouTube™ as a source of information on trichotillomania? J Health Sci Med. 2022;5(6):1582-1586. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1167971
16. Piskin E, Çolakoğlu MK, Bal A, Oter V, Bostanci EB. Evaluation of the quality, educational value and utility of the videos on YouTube for laparoscopic low anterior resection. Am Surg TM. 2022;88(9):2380-2387. doi:10.1177/00031348211011102
17. Zainab A, Sakkour R, Handu K, et al. Measuring the quality of YouTube videos on anxiety: a study using the global quality scale and discern tool. Int J Comm Med Publ Health. 2023;10(11):4492-4496. doi:10.18203/ 2394-6040.ijcmph20233500
18. Som R, Gunawardana NP. Internet chemotherapy information is of good quality: assessment with the DISCERN tool. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(2): 403-404. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.223
19. Paquette IM, Varma MG, Kaiser AM, Steele SR, Rafferty JF. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons’ clinical practice guideline for the treatment of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(7):623-636. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000397
20. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 198: prevention and management of obstetric lacerations at vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(3):e87-e102. doi:10.1097/AOG.000000 0000002841
21. Cakmak G, Mantoglu B. Reliability and quality of YouTube contents pertaining to pancreatic cancer. Cureus. 2021;13(3):e14085. doi:10.7759/cureus.14085
22. Herzog I, Pandher M, Mansukhani PA, Kapadia K, Lee ES. Is YouTube propagating concerns about breast implant illness? Ann Plast Surg. 2024;92(2):144-147. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003743
23. Celik H, Polat O, Ozcan C, Camur S, Kilinc BE, Uzun M. Assessment of the quality and reliability of the information on rotator cuff repair on YouTube. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020;106(1):31-34. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2019.10.004
24. MacLeod MG, Hoppe DJ, Simunovic N, Bhandari M, Philippon MJ, Ayeni OR. YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy. 2015; 31(1):136-142. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.06.009
25. Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH. YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(14):4066-4070. doi:10. 3748/wjg.v20.i14.4066
26. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis-a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903. doi:10.3899/jrheum.111114
27. Javidan A, Nelms MW, Li A, et al. Evaluating YouTube as a source of education for patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2023;278(4):e712-718. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000005892
28. Curran V, Simmons K, Matthews L, et al. YouTube as an educational resource in medical education: a scoping review. Med Sci Educ. 2020; 30(4):1775-1782. doi:10.1007/s40670-020-01016-w
Article available in :
Volume 5, Issue 1, 2025
Page : 4-8
https://doi.org/10.51271/KMJ-0174
Article Information
Received : 11 Eyl 2024
Accepted : 01 Eki 2024
Published : 04 Mar 2025
Corresponding Author :

Melih Can Gül: Department of Gastroenterology, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital , Ankara Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Gül MC, Akkuş F, Gül Ö. Are the anal sphincter repair videos on YouTube™ informative? Two surgical department view. Kastamonu Med J. 2025;5(1):4-8.

Read: 59
Cited: 0
Download : 80
_Footer