Canan GÜNDÜZ, Okan GÜRKAN

Assessment of the Educational Content of YouTube Videos about Chest Radiograph Interpretation

Objectives: YouTube has become a commonly used education tool by medical students; however, the quality of the content varies and unreliable videosmay be misleading. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the educational content of YouTube videos about chest radiograph interpretation.Patients and Methods: A search was made using the keywords ‘‘chest radiograph/chest x ray interpretation’’. Video characteristics and video contentindices (content quality index [CQI], PACEMAN index and video information and quality index [VIQI]) were evaluated by two reviewers. Spearmancorrelation analysis and Mann Whitney U tests were performed.Results: In the study, 34 videos with a median of 11.34 (1.52-51.18) minutes were evaluated. The median scores for CPI, PACEMAN, VIQI and VPI were9.00 (3.00-12.00); 14.50 (9.00-20.00); 4.00 (0.00-7.00) and 17.45 (0.08-803.61), respectively. CPI demonstrated a correlation with VIQI and PACEMANscores (

PDF

___

1. Delrue L, Gosselin R, Ilsen B, Van Landeghem A, de Mey J, Duyck P. Difficulties in the Interpretation of Chest Radiography. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. pp.27–49.
2. Wanner GK, Phillips AW, Papanagnou D. Assessing the use of social media in physician assistant education. Int J Med Educ 2019;10:23– 28. [CrossRef]
3. YouTube statistics page. [Internet]. [cited 2019 May 2]. Available at: [CrossRef]
4. Tackett S, Slinn K, Marshall T, Gaglani S, Waldman V, Desai R. Medical Education Videos for the World. Acad Med 2018;93:1150–1156. [CrossRef]
5. Rapp AK, Healy MG, Charlton ME, Keith JN, Rosenbaum ME, Kapadia MR. YouTube is the Most Frequently Used Educational Video Source for Surgical Preparation. J Surg Educ 2016;73:1072–1076. [CrossRef]
6. Rabee R, Najim M, Sherwani Y, et al. YouTube in medical education: a student’s perspective Med Educ Online 2015;20:29507. [CrossRef]
7. Lena Y, Dindaroglu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: A YouTube video analysis. Angle Orthod 2018;88:208–214. [CrossRef]
8. Camm CF, Sunderland N, Camm AJ. A quality assessment of cardiac auscultation material on youtube. Clin Cardiol 2013;36:77–81. [CrossRef]
9. Murfitt J. The normal chest: methods of investigation and differential diagnosis. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone; 1993.
10. Kyei KA, Antwi WK, Atswei LP, Kitson-Mills D, Donkor A. Evaluation of chest radiographs to determine the knowledge of final year Ghanaian radiography students. The South African Radiographer 2018;56:31– 34.
11. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015;21:173–194. [CrossRef]
12. Nagpal SJS, Karimianpour A, Mukhija D, Mohan D, Brateanu A. YouTube videos as a source of medical information during the Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic. Springerplus 2015;4:457. [CrossRef]
13. Şahin A, Şahin M, Türkçü FM. YouTube as a source of information in retinopathy of prematurity. Ir J Med Sci 2018;188:613–617. [CrossRef]
14. Joshi S, Dimov V. Quality of YouTube videos for patient education on how to use asthma inhalers. World Allergy Organ J 2015;8(Suppl 1) A221. [CrossRef]