Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 39, Issue 7, pp 1263–1268 | Cite as

Does YouTube provide high quality information? Assessment of secukinumab videos

  • Burhan Fatih KocyigitEmail author
  • Mazlum Serdar Akaltun
Public Health
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

The Internet is a widely used source for obtaining health-related information. With the widespread use of the Internet, access to information has become easier. YouTube is one of the major sources for health-related videos globally. YouTube provides a wide range of health-related information, but there are doubts about its quality and reliability. Therefore, we aimed to assess the quality of the most viewed secukinumab videos on YouTube. This is a descriptive study. A total of 180 secukinumab videos returned by the YouTube search engine (http://www.youtube.com) in response to a keywords query were evaluated in the study. The Global Quality Scale (GQS) was used to assess educational quality, and three groups were created: high quality, intermediate quality, and low quality. Video parameters were compared among the quality groups. After applying the exclusion criteria, 53 videos were analyzed; 18 (34%) videos were in the high-quality group, 17 (32%) were in the intermediate-quality group, and 18 (34%) were in the low-quality group. No significant difference was detected in terms of the number of views, likes, dislikes, and comments per day between the groups (p > 0.05). YouTube has a mixed structure of high, intermediate, and low-quality videos. The number of views, likes, dislikes, and comments per day should not be accepted as an indicator of quality for YouTube videos. In addition, patients should consider the importance of sources when obtaining online health-related information.

Keywords

YouTube Secukinumab Ankylosing spondylitis Psoriatic arthritis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Tuba Tulay Koca for the video reviews.

Author contributions

BFK and MSA designed the study; BFK and MSA reviewed the videos and provided the data; BFK analyzed the data; MSA contributed the analysis tools; BFK and MSA authored and reviewed drafts of the paper; BFK prepared the tables; BFK and MSA made the revisions; BFK and MSA approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethics statement

We did not evaluate any human participants or animals in this study. Videos that anyone can access were evaluated. Therefore, there was no need for approval of the ethics committee for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Mease PJ, McInnes IB, Kirkham B, Kavanaugh A, Rahman P, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Nash P, Pricop L, Yuan J, Richards HB, Mpofu S, FUTURE 1 Study Group (2015) Secukinumab inhibition of interleukin-17A in patients with psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med 373:1329–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1412679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langley RG, Elewski BE, Lebwohl M, Reich K, Griffiths CE, Papp K, Puig L, Nakagawa H, Spelman L, Sigurgeirsson B, Rivas E, Tsai TF, Wasel N, Tyring S, Salko T, Hampele I, Notter M, Karpov A, Helou S, Papavassilis C, ERASURE Study Group; FIXTURE Study Group (2014) Secukinumab in plaque psoriasis—results of two phase 3 trials. N Engl J Med 371:326–338.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1314258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baeten D, Baraliakos X, Braun J, Sieper J, Emery P, van der Heijde D, McInnes I, van Laar JM, Landewé R, Wordsworth P, Wollenhaupt J, Kellner H, Paramarta J, Wei J, Brachat A, Bek S, Laurent D, Li Y, Wang YA, Bertolino AP, Gsteiger S, Wright AM, Hueber W (2013) Anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody secukinumab in treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 382:1705–1713.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61134-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, English TM, Lapane KL (2015) Access to care and use of the Internet to search for health information: results from the US National Health Interview Survey. J Med Internet Res 17(4):e106.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G (2019) A quality analysis of disc herniation videos on YouTube. World Neurosurg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.146 (Epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rittberg R, Dissanayake T, Katz SJ (2016) A qualitative analysis of methotrexate self-injection education videos on YouTube. Clin Rheumatol 35:1329–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-2910-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tolu S, Yurdakul OV, Basaran B, Rezvani A (2018) English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatol Int 38:1285–1292.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-018-4047-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, Berk E (2019) YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-018-04413-0 (Epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S (2007) A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the world wide web. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2070–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNab C (2009) What social media offers to health professionals and citizens. Bull World Health Organ 87:566.  https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.066712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP (2012) YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 39:899–903.  https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.11111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garg N, Venkatraman A, Pandey A, Kumar N (2015) YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology (Carlton) 20:315–320.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, Burke MJ, Aslam A, Giri SK, Flood HD (2015) YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scand J Urol 49:189–192.  https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2014.975837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Şahin A, Şahin M, Türkcü FM (2018) YouTube as a source of information in retinopathy of prematurity. Ir J Med Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1902-2 (Epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erdem MN, Karaca S (2018) Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:E1334–E1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK (2015) Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J 21:173–194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh SK, Liu S, Capasso R, Kern RC, Gouveia CJ (2018) YouTube as a source of information for obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Otolaryngol 39:378–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2018.03.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of MedicineKahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam UniversityKahramanmaraşTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationNecip Fazıl State HospitalKahramanmaraşTurkey

Personalised recommendations