Evaluating the Reliability and Quality of the Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty Videos on YouTube.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess the quality of videos on YouTube as educational resources for patients and physicians about blepharoplastic surgery. This study is a retrospective and cross-sectional study. A YouTube search for the term "blepharoplasty" was made and the first 210 videos were recorded (all video searches were done by clearing all search history without any user login). The number of views, likes and dislikes, upload time (i.e. age) of all videos, video duration, and source (i.e. physicians, non- physicians) were recorded. The video uploader, physicians, healthcare provider, health-related channels were gathered in a group. Video sources were evaluated as physician and non-physician. The DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Global Quality scores of all videos were also evaluated and recorded by two experienced oculoplastic surgeons. Considering our exclusion criteria from 210 videos we evaluated, 186 videos were included in the study. 147 (79%) of these videos were uploaded by physicians and 39 (21%) by non-physicians users. The total viewing average was 69,548 ± 14,533. The average length (min) of all videos was 7.59 ± 8.75 min. The average of total likes was 301.72 ± 578.89, dislike was 28.47 ± 68.90. The mean DISCERN score was 45.06 ± 12.88 (fair quality), the mean JAMA score was 1.39 ± 1.06 (poor quality), and the mean Global Quality score was 2.39 ± 1.03 (intermediate quality). DISCERN, JAMA, GQS scores were statistically significant between videos uploaded by physicians and non- physicians (p< 0.001). As a result of the videos reviewed, YouTube videos can be educational and informative for patients and physicians. Only if the video source and content are selected correctly. We hope that YouTube will become more useful in terms of healthcare and education once its role in e-learning is clear. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .