Breaking misconceptions: assessing the quality of YouTube videos on penile fracture with validated scoring tool

Desmintiendo conceptos erróneos: evaluación de la calidad de los videos de YouTube sobre fractura de pene con una herramienta de evaluación validada

Background: The main objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of YouTube videos related to penile fracture by applying established rating systems. Methods: A descriptive investigation was carried out by browsing YouTube for videos related to “Penile fracture”. Out of a total of 108 videos that were found, 47 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The features and substance of the videos were assessed utilizing the adjusted DISCERN tool, the criteria from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 software, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: High-quality videos, as classified by GQS, had more views, likes, and comments than lower-quality videos; however, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In contrast, videos with detailed and accurate content had significantly higher view counts (approximately tenfold) and more likes (approximately twofold) than poor-content videos (p < 0.05). A strong positive correlation was found between content analysis scores and DISCERN (r = 0.815, p < 0.001), JAMA (r = 0.781, p < 0.001), and GQS (r = 0.722, p < 0.001). Videos made by urologists and surgeons demonstrated superior quality across all measured criteria in comparison to those crafted by individuals without healthcare backgrounds (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The quality of YouTube content addressing penile fracture exhibits a wide range, with content generated by healthcare experts standing out for its high quality. It is imperative for medical professionals to actively engage in disseminating accurate health information on these platforms.

Resumen

Antecedentes: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la calidad de los videos de YouTube sobre fractura de pene utilizando sistemas de evaluación validados. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo mediante la búsqueda de “Fractura de pene” en YouTube. Se identificaron un total de 108 videos, de los cuales 47 cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. Las características y el contenido de los videos fueron evaluados utilizando la herramienta DISCERN modificada, los criterios de la Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) y la Escala Global de Calidad (GQS). El análisis estadístico se realizó con el software SPSS 22.0, con un nivel de significación de p < 0.05. Resultados: Los videos de alta calidad, según la clasificación de GQS, tuvieron más visualizaciones, “me gusta” y comentarios que los videos de menor calidad; sin embargo, estas diferencias no fueron estadísticamente significativas (p > 0.05). En contraste, los videos con contenido detallado y preciso tuvieron significativamente más visualizaciones (aproximadamente diez veces más) y más “me gusta” (aproximadamente el doble) que los videos con contenido deficiente (p < 0.05). Se encontró una fuerte correlación positiva entre las puntuaciones del análisis de contenido y DISCERN (r = 0.815, p < 0.001), JAMA (r = 0.781, p < 0.001) y GQS (r = 0.722, p < 0.001). Los videos creados por urólogos y cirujanos obtuvieron puntajes significativamente más altos en todas las métricas de calidad en comparación con los producidos por no profesionales de la salud (p < 0.001). Conclusiones: La calidad de los videos de YouTube sobre fractura de pene varía ampliamente, siendo los profesionales de la salud los que producen contenido de mayor calidad. Es crucial que los profesionales médicos asuman un papel activo en la difusión de información sanitaria confiable en estas plataformas.

Penile fracture; YouTube; Video quality; DISCERN; JAMA; GQS

Palabras Clave

Fractura de pene; YouTube; Calidad de video; DISCERN; JAMA; GQS

[1] Syarif S, Azis A, Natsir AS, Putra MZDA. What is the most dangerous sexual position that caused the penile fracture? A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Brazilian Journal of Urology. 2024; 50: 28–36.

[2] Yokoyama S, Tsuboi I, Ogawa K, Yoshioka S, Kobayasi Y, Nakajima H, et al. Isolated rupture of the corpus spongiosum with urethral injury diagnosed by pre-surgical MRI. International Journal of Urology Case Reports. 2022; 6:70–72.

[3] Bernstein AP, Shayegh N, Piraino J, Ziegelmann M. Optimal timing of surgical intervention for penile fracture: a narrative review of the modern literature. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2024; 12: 230–239.

[4] Rezaee ME, Gross MS. The pelvic pop: an extremely rare case of internal penile fracture presenting with scrotal hematoma and review of the literature. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2021; 23: 116–117.

[5] Hughes WM, Natale C, Hellstrom WJG. The management of penile fracture: a review of the literature with special consideration for patients undergoing collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection therapy. Current Urology Reports. 2021; 22: 13.

[6] Horiguchi A, Edo H, Shinchi M, Ojima K, Hirano Y, Ito K, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of male pelvic fracture urethral injury. International Journal of Urology. 2022; 29: 919–929.

[7] Klemm J, Marks P, Dahlem R, Riechardt S, Fisch M, Vetterlein MW. Contemporary management of pelvic fracture urethral injuries. Urologie. 2022; 61: 602–608. (In German)

[8] Yusuf M, Yogiswara N, Soebadi MA, Duarsa GWK, Wirjopranoto S. Long-term outcomes comparison of immediate and delayed surgical intervention for penile fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sexologies. 2022; 31: 453–460.

[9] Falcone M, Garaffa G, Castiglione F, Ralph DJ. Current management of penile fracture: an up-to-date systematic review. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2018; 6: 253–260.

[10] Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Ralph DJ. Penile fracture and penile reconstruction. Current Urology Reports. 2011; 12: 427–431.

[11] Sarıkaya K, Senocak Ç, Sadioğlu FE, Bozkurt ÖF, Çiftçi M. Early surgical repair or conservative treatment? Comparing patients with penile fracture concerning long-term sexual functions. Turkish Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. 2021; 27: 249–254.

[12] Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatologic Clinics. 2009; 27: 133–136.

[13] Miller LMS, Bell RA. Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. Journal of Aging and Health. 2012; 24: 525–541.

[14] Drozd B, Couvillion E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Medical Education. 2018; 4: e3.

[15] Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015; 21: 173–194.

[16] Sancı A, Özcan C. Evaluation of the quality and reliability of YouTube video resources on microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Andrology Bulletin. 2022; 24: 186–190.

[17] Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1244–1245.

[18] Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Van Zanten SV. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2007; 102: 2070–2077.

[19] Zhong B. Going beyond fact-checking to fight health misinformation: a multi-level analysis of the Twitter response to health news stories. International Journal of Information Management. 2023; 70: 102626.

[20] Taştemur S, Şenel S, Kasap Y, Uzun E, Ölçücüoğlu E. Quality analysis of the YouTube videos on kidney transplantation. Cumhuriyet Medical Journal. 2022; 44: 98–103.