MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391265247 · doi:10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.01.054

YouTube as a Source of Patient and Trainee Education in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4391265247 on OpenAlexaff
Arshia P. Javidan, Muralie Vignarajah, Matthew W. Nelms, Fangwen Zhou, Yung Lee, Faysal Naji, Ahmed Kayssi

Bibliographic record

VenueEJVES Vascular Forum · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEPatient educationVascular surgeryQuality (philosophy)Medical educationSurgeryFamily medicineCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its video based approach, YouTube has become a widely accessed educational resource for patients and trainees. This systematic review characterised and evaluated the peer reviewed literature investigating YouTube as a source of patient or trainee education in vascular surgery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Ovid HealthStar from inception until 19 January 2023. All primary studies and conference abstracts evaluating YouTube as a source of vascular surgery education were included. Video educational quality was analysed across several factors, including pathology, video audience, and length. Overall, 24 studies were identified examining 3 221 videos with 123.1 hours of content and 37.1 million views. Studies primarily examined YouTube videos on diabetic foot care (7/24, 29%), peripheral arterial disease (3/24, 13%), carotid artery stenosis (3/24, 13%), varicose veins (3/24, 13%), and abdominal aortic aneurysms (2/24, 8%). Video educational quality was analysed using standardised assessment tools, author generated scoring systems, or global author reported assessment of quality. Six studies assessed videos for trainee education, while 18 studies evaluated videos for patient education. Among the 20 studies which reported on the overall quality of educational content, 10/20 studies deemed it “poor”, and 10/20 studies considered it “fair”, with 53% of studies noting poor educational quality for videos intended for patients and 40% of studies noting poor educational quality in videos intended for trainees. Poor quality videos had more views than fair quality videos (mean [95% CI] 27 348, 15 154 – 39 543 views vs. 11 372, 3 115 – 19 629 views, p = .030). The overall educational quality of YouTube videos for vascular surgery patient and trainee education is suboptimal. There is significant heterogeneity in the quality assessment tools used in their evaluation. A standardised approach to online education with a consistent quality assessment tool is required to better support online patient and trainee education in vascular surgery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJVES Vascular ForumSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207