Background: Patients are increasingly accessing consumer-style health information from a variety of web-based platforms. This study aims to assess a popular audio-visual platform for its quality of information in orthognathic procedures. Methods: We queried YouTube on August 12th, 2021 for 20 videos, by both relevance and view count, under each of 3 search terms: (1) “orthognathic surgery,” (2) “LeFort I osteotomy,” and (3) “sagittal split osteotomy.” Each video was characterized by date of upload, time since upload, video duration, video type, and video author. Videos were further characterized by type of video (1) creator and (2) category. The provider-validated instrument DISCERN was applied to each video to assess content quality and bias. Results: Of 60 videos marked for review, 46 were included for analysis. The most common category of video was operative (n = 18, 36.1%), while the most common creator type was non-physician medical professional (n = 14, 30.4%). Hospital or physician advertisement videos had the greatest video power index (26 297 ± 44 556), while medical education videos had the least (13 ± 9). Significant differences were found across both video type and video creator in viewership (P = .008 and .003, respectively) and video power index (P = .010 and .007), but not duration (P = .796 and .059). DISCERN scores ranged from 16 to 80 and were subdivided into 5 categories: very poor (16-28), poor (29-41), fair (42-54), good (55-67), and excellent (68-80). Average DISCERN scores for all 46 videos were 17.9 ± 4.9 for reliability, 14.2 ± 4.0 for quality, and 34.3 ± 9.0 for overall. Conclusions: YouTube videos on orthognathic surgery were of overall poor quality. These videos were rated best in relevance to the search parameter and description of treatment but were least helpful in describing alternatives to the treatment and uncertainties about the procedure. Videos created by patients and about patient experiences were rated best for content that was reliable, high quality, and low bias.
AbukamilRPielJL.Sharing violent thoughts on the internet. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2019;47(1):82-90. doi:10.29158/JAAPL.003826-19
2.
ZaroniFMCavalcanteRCJoãodaCostaDKluppelLEScariotRRebellatoNLB. Complications associated with orthognathic surgery: a retrospective study of 485 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47(12):1855-1860. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.012
3.
FerriJDruelleCSchlundMBricoutNNicotR.Complications in orthognathic surgery: a retrospective study of 5025 cases. Int Orthod. 2019;17(4):789-798. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2019.08.016
4.
PosnickJC.Definition and prevalence of dentofacial deformities. In:PosnickJC (ed.) Principles and Practice of Orthognathic Surgery. W.B. Saunders; 2014;61-68.
5.
BavbekNCTuncerBB.Information on the Internet regarding orthognathic surgery in Turkey: Is it an adequate guide for potential patients?Turk Ortodonti Derg. 2017;30(3):78-83. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2017.17027
6.
EngelmannJFischerCNkenkeE.Quality assessment of patient information on orthognathic surgery on the internet. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(7):661-665. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2020.05.004
HuangMMWinokerJSAllafMEMatlagaBRKooK.Evidence-based quality and accuracy of YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis. BJU Int. 2021;127:247-253. doi:10.1111/bju.15213
10.
PithadiaDJReynoldsKALeeEBWuJJ.A cross-sectional study of YouTube videos as a source of patient information about topical psoriasis therapies. J Dermatol Treat. 2020;31(4):366-369. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1597247
11.
AlmarghoubMAAlghareebMAAlhammadAKAlotaibiHFKattanAE.Plastic surgery on YouTube. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(1):e2586. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002586
12.
ŚledzińskaPBebynMGFurtakJ.Quality of YouTube videos on meningioma treatment using the DISCERN instrument. World Neurosurg. 2021;153:e179-e186. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.072
13.
FodeMNolsøeABJacobsenFM, et al. Quality of information in YouTube videos on erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2020;8(3):408-413. doi:10.1016/j.esxm.2020.05.007
14.
GorrepatiPLSmithGP.DISCERN scores of YouTube information on eczema treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(5):1354-1355. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.11.007
15.
CassidyJTBakerJF.Orthopaedic patient information on the world wide web: an essential review. J Bone Joint Surg. 2016;98(4):325-338.
16.
CharnockDShepperdSNeedhamGGannR.DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-111. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105
17.
GriffithsKMChristensenH.Website quality indicators for consumers. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(5):e55. doi:10.2196/jmir.7.5.e55
18.
WeilAGBojanowskiMWJamartJGustinTLévêqueM.Evaluation of the quality of information on the internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1–2):e31-e39. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.11.003
19.
AldairyTLaverickSMcIntyreGT.Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid?Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:466-469. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr046
20.
LeeKCBergETJazayeriHEChuangS-KEisigSB.Online patient education materials for orthognathic surgery fail to meet readability and quality standards. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(1):180.e1-180.e8.
21.
ReesCEFordJESheardCE.Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47(3):273-275. doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(01)00225-7
22.
MoollaYAdamAPereraMLawrentschukN.‘Prostate cancer’ information on the Internet: fact or fiction?Curr Urol. 2020;13(4):200-208. doi:10.1159/000499271
23.
HargraveDRHargraveUABouffetE.Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neurooncol. 2006;8(2):175-182. doi:10.1215/15228517-2005-008
DesaiTShariffADhingraVMinhasDEureMKatsM.Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82469. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
26.
AzerSA.Are DISCERN and JAMA suitable instruments for assessing YouTube videos on thyroid cancer? Methodological concerns. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35(6):1267-1277. doi:10.1007/s13187-020-01763-9
CharnockD.The DISCERN Handbook. Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. Radcliffe Medical Press; 1988.
29.
RiskADzenowagisJ.Review of internet health information quality initiatives. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(4):E28. doi:10.2196/jmir.3.4.e28
30.
HegartyECampbellCGrammatopoulosEDiBiaseATSherriffMCobourneMT.YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod. 2017;44(2):90-96. doi:10.1080/14653125.2017.1319010
