Description: A laptop screen showing a YouTube video of a person performing meniscus rehabilitation exercises.

La calidad de los videos de YouTube sobre rehabilitación de menisco es baja, según estudio.


La calidad de los videos de YouTube sobre rehabilitación de menisco es baja, según estudio.

meniscus tear rehabilitación fisioterapia videos de salud calidad de contenido.

Resumen

Este estudio evaluó la calidad del contenido de los videos de YouTube relacionados con la rehabilitación de la lesión de menisco.

Se analizaron 50 videos y se clasificaron en cuatro categorías.

Los videos producidos por profesionales no médicos, como fisioterapeutas y quiroprácticos, tuvieron la mayor representación.

Los puntajes de calidad de los videos fueron evaluados mediante tres sistemas de calificación diferentes y se encontró que la calidad general de los videos fue intermedia a baja.

La duración, las vistas y los "me gusta" también se analizaron y se encontraron diferencias significativas entre las categorías de videos.

Como fisioterapeuta, debes tener en cuenta que los pacientes pueden estar viendo videos de baja calidad en línea y puede ser útil recomendar videos de alta calidad y confiables.

La importancia de los vídeos de rehabilitación de calidad en YouTube para fisioterapeutas y clínicas

Los fisioterapeutas deben prestar atención a la calidad de los vídeos de rehabilitación en YouTube. Es crucial para una clínica de fisioterapia ofrecer contenido de calidad en esta plataforma, ya que puede mejorar su reputación y atraer nuevos pacientes. No subestime el poder de un buen vídeo educativo en línea.

Abstract original

Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation

Introduction: YouTube is an open-source platform where creators can record and upload videos for others to see. As the popularity of YouTube increases, it is being increasingly used for healthcare-related information. However, with the relative ease of uploading videos, the content quality of individual videos is not regulated. This study aimed to assess and analyze the content quality of YouTube videos concerning meniscus tear rehabilitation. We hypothesized that most videos would be of low quality.

Methods: The keywords "meniscus tear treatment," "meniscus tear recovery," "meniscus tear physical therapy," and "meniscus tear rehabilitation" were used for searching videos on YouTube. A total of 50 videos was analyzed in this study that related to meniscal rehabilitation, grouped into one of four categories: non-physician professionals (physical therapists and chiropractors) (n=28), physicians (with or without academic affiliation) (n=5), non-academic healthcare-related websites (n=10), and non-professional individuals (n=7). Videos were then assessed by two independent authors using three scoring systems, which included the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN, and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scores. The number of likes, comments, video length, and views were collected for each video. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare quality scores and video analytics.

Results: The overall median GQS, modified DISCERN, and JAMA scores were 3 (interquartile range (IQR): 2-3), 2 (IQR: 2-2), and 2 (IQR: 2-2), respectively. Sorted by GQS scores, 20 videos were of low quality (40%), 21 were intermediate (42%), and nine were of high quality (18%). Non-physician professionals produced 56% (28 of 50) of the videos assessed, with physical therapists constituting 86% (24 of 28) of this category. The median duration of each video was 6:54 (IQR: 3:59-10:50) minutes, views was 42,262 (IQR: 12,373-306,491), and likes was 877 (IQR: 239-4,850). Kruskal-Wallis testing showed a significant difference between JAMA scores, likes, and video length duration between video categories (p<0.028).

Conclusion: The overall median reliability of YouTube videos on meniscus tear rehabilitation measured by JAMA and modified DISCERN scores was low. The overall median video quality, as assessed by GQS scores, was intermediate. Video quality was highly variable, with fewer than 20% meeting high-quality standards. As a result, patients are often viewing lower quality videos when researching their condition online.

Autores Varag Abed
Matthew Ray
Joseph Smathers
Austin V Stone
revista Cureus
DOI 10.7759/cureus.36299