Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 3769–3773 | Cite as

A cross sectional review of patient information available in the World Wide Web on CyberKnife: fallacies and pitfalls

  • Durgapoorna Menon
  • Prameela G. Chelakkot
  • Devika Sunil
  • Ashwini Lakshmaiah
Original Article



The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of videos available in YouTube on CyberKnife.


The term “CyberKnife” was input into the search window of on a specific date and the first 50 videos were assessed for technical and content issues. The data was tabulated and analysed.


The search yielded 32,300 videos in 0.33 s. Among the first 50 analysed, most were professional videos, mostly on CyberKnife in general and for brain tumours. Most of the videos did not mention anything about patient selection or lesion size. The other technical details were covered by most although they seemed muffled by the animations. Many patient videos were recordings of one entire treatment, thus giving future patients an insight on what to expect. Almost half the videos projected glorified views about the treatment technique.


The company videos were reasonably accurate and well presented as were many institutional videos, although there was a tendency to gloss over a few points. The glorification of the treatment technique was a disturbing finding. The profound trust of the patients on the health care system is humbling.


CyberKnife YouTube Health information Internet 



The authors are indebted to the “Information Revolution” that has made this project feasible.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interests to declare.


  1. 1.
  2. 2., accessed 12th April 2017
  3. 3.
    Kushnirsky M, Patel V, Schulder M (2015) The history of stereotactic radiosurgery. In: Chin L, Regine W (eds) Principles and practice of stereotactic radiosurgery, 2nd edn. Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–10Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leksell L (1983) Occasional review stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 46(April):797–803CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng W, Adler JR (2006) An overview of Cyberknife radiosurgery. Chin J Clin Oncol 3(4):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6., accessed 12th April 2017
  7. 7.
    Pennbridge J, Rita Moya LR (1999) Questionnaire survey of California consumers’ use and rating of sources of health care information including the Internet. West J Med 171:302–305PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peterson G, Aslani P, Williams KA (2003) How do consumers search for and appraise information on medicines on the Internet? A qualitative study using focus groups. J Med Internet Res 5(4):e33CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Childs S (2004) Developing health website quality assessment guidelines for the voluntary sector: outcomes from the Judge Project. Health Inf Libr J 21:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zuk G, Palma AF, Eylert G, Raptis DA, Guggenheim M, Shafighi M (2016) Systematic review of quality of patient information on liposuction in the Internet. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(6):e759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Res MI, Originally C, Commons C, License A (2002) eEurope 2002: quality criteria for health related websites. J Med Internet Res 4(3):72–91Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aeree S, Mee-Kyung S (2001) Evaluating health information sites on the .Internet in Korea: a cross-sectional survey. Asia Pac J Public Health 13(Suppl):S19–S22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joshi A, Mehta S, Talati K, Malhotra B, Grover A (2013) Evaluation of metabolic syndrome related health information on internet in Indian context. Technol Health Care 21(1):19–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan MLH, Kok K, Ganesh V, Thomas SS (2014) Patient information on breast reconstruction in the era of the World Wide Web. A snapshot analysis of information available on Breast 23(1):33–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyAmrita Institute of Medical SciencesKochiIndia

Personalised recommendations