Table 8 Literature review of studies concerning YouTube information of spine fields

Erdem et al. [37]

To confirm the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube

Searched using keyword “kyphosis”; Selected first 50 videos in response to the query

50

•Based on the source: academic, physician, nonphysician, trainer, medical, patient, and commercial

•Based on the content: exercise training, information about disease, patient experience, surgical technique, chiropractic treatment, and advertisement

JAMA score, GQS score, Kyphosis-Specific Score

•The quality of the information about kyphosis acquired on YouTube is poor.

•Despite their high number of views, the information and accuracy of the videos uploaded by physicians were poor.

•The low-quality videos were more readable, whereas videos with higher scores were not found “attractive” by the users

Ovenden et al. [41]

To assess the quality of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion videos available on YouTube and identify factors associated with video quality

Searched using phrase “anterior cervical discectomy and fusion”; Selected first 50 videos in response to the query

50

•Based on the source: patient testimonies, spinal surgeon, and other (paramedic companies, medical engineering companies, or media teams)

JAMA score, DISERN score, Health on the Net (HON) ranking systems

•The overall video quality was poor.

•Surgeon authors’ videos scored higher than patient testimony videos when reviewed using the HON or JAMA systems.

Mohile et al. [42]

To evaluate YouTube’s current patient accessible health information on the topic of lumbar disc herniation (LDH)

Searched using 3 different strings: “disc herniation”, “lumbar disc herniation”, and “lower back disc herniation”; Selected first 50 videos in response to each query

77

•Based on the source: educational (physician), educational (non-physician), surgical Technique, advertisement, and patient testimonial.

•Based on the content: diagnosis, treatment, and both

Diagnostic information assessment checklist for

LDH, treatment information assessment checklist for

LDH

•YouTube provides a significant content volume on LDH that widely ranges but is overall mediocre in quality.

•Physician-directed educational videos were noted to be the only characteristic that reliably helps users identify a more useful information resource on YouTube.

Rudisill et al. [43]

To assess the reliability and educational quality of YouTube videos related to pediatric scoliosis

Searched using 4 different strings: “pediatric scoliosis”, “idiopathic scoliosis”, “scoliosis in children”, and “curved spine in children”; Selected first 50 videos in response to each query

153

•Based on the source: academic, physician (independent physician or group not affiliated with academic institutions), nonphysician (health professionals other than licensed medical doctors), athletic trainer, medical source (e.g., health website), patient (personal experience), and commercial.

•Based on the content: rehabilitative exercises/physical therapy, disease-specific information, patient experience (personal accounts of disease and/or treatment), surgical management, nonsurgical management; and advertisement

JAMA score, GQS score, Pediatric Scoliosis-Specific Score

•YouTube contains a large repository of videos concerning pediatric scoliosis; however, the reliability and educational quality of these videos were low.

•Multivariate analysis determined longer video duration predicted higher scores on all measures

•There were no independent associations between upload source or content and assessment scores.

Richardson et al. [44]

To evaluate the quality and educational content of YouTube videos concerning spine tumors

Searched using keyword “spine tumor”; Selected first 50 videos in response to the query

50

•Based on the source: academic medical group, biomedical industry, private medical group, insurance company, and others.

•Based on the content: advertisement, disease-specific information, nonsurgical management, patient experience, surgical technique or approach, and others.

JAMA score, GQS score, evaluation of specific information

•The reliability, quality, and educational content of YouTube videos were poor to suboptimal.

•Videos that have been posted more recently attract more online attention

•Video duration was positively associated with both the JAMA score and GQS; Number of views was associated with higher JAMA score; Number of dislikes was negatively associated with GQS.

Hornung et al. [24]

To characterize the educational quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to low back pain (LBP) as well as to identify factors associated with the overall video quality

Searched using 2 different strings: “low back pain” and “back pain”; Selected first 50 videos in response to each query

77

•Based on the source: academic (authors/uploaders with research or university/college affiliations), physician (physicians or physician groups without research or university/college affiliations), nonphysicians (health professionals other than licensed medical doctors), medical sources (content or animations from health-focused websites), and patients.

•Based on the content: training (videos on exercise, rehabilitation, or therapy related to LBP), LBP-specific information (pathophysiology, testing, etc.), testimonials from patients, surgical technique(s), additional management procedures (nonsurgical or pharmacological), and advertisements

JAMA score, GQS score, LBP score (LPS)

•The overall reliability and educational quality of videos uploaded to YouTube concerning LBP are unsatisfactory.

•More popular videos demonstrated poorer educational quality than their less popular counterparts.

•Days since initial upload as well as like ratio were independent predictors of higher LPS scores.

Muller et al. [45]

To assess and compare the quality of lumbar fusion and arthroplasty videos on YouTube and to identify predictors of video quality

Searched using 6 different strings: “low back fusion”, “lumbar fusion”, “lumbar arthrodesis”, “low back disc replacement”, “lumbar disc replacement” and “lumbar disc arthroplasty”; Selected first 50 videos in response to each query

84

•Main category: educational, testimonial, commercial, and academic.

•Subcategory: fusion (including different approach, e.g., anterior lumbar interbody fusion, transformainal lumbar interbody fusion, etc.), arthroplasty (including details of the implant, e.g., ProDisc-L, M6-L, etc.), non-specific.

JAMA score, informative score, clinical score

•Information on YouTube for lumbar fusion and arthroplasty is poor.

•Information on fusion is better than arthroplasty.

•Newer fusion videos had higher JAMA scores and fusion videos appearing sooner in search results had higher clinical scores; Longer fusion and arthroplasty videos both had higher clinical scores.

Stogowski et al. [38]

To assess the quality of the online videos regarding anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)

Searched using 3 different strings: “anterior lumbar interbody fusion”, “ALIF”, and “ALIF surgery”; Selected first 50 videos in response to each query

24

•No classification

DISCERN score

•The overall quality of YouTube videos on ALIF remains poor.

•Longer video duration increases its quality without simultaneous negative influence on its popularity.