4.5 Article

Concerns of Quality and Safety in Public Domain Surgical Education Videos: An Assessment of the Critical View of Safety in Frequently Used Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Videos

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
卷 225, 期 6, 页码 725-730

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.08.016

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Digestive Disease Institute at Benaroya Research Institute [0920401]
  2. Virginia Mason Medical Center
  3. Patterson Surgery Research Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Online videos are among the most common resources for case preparation. Using crowd sourcing, we evaluated the relationship between operative quality and viewing characteristics of online laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos. STUDY DESIGN: We edited 160 online videos of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to 60 seconds or less. Crowd workers (CW) rated videos using Global Objective Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS), the critical view of safety (CVS) criteria, and assigned overall pass/fail ratings if CVS was achieved; linear mixed effects models derived average ratings. Views, likes, dislikes, subscribers, and country were recorded for subset analysis of YouTube videos. Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) assessed correlation between performance measures. RESULTS: One video (0.06%) achieved a passing CVS score of >= 5; 23%, >= 4; 44%, >= 3; 79%, >= 2; and 100% >= 1. Pass/fail ratings correlated to CVS, SCC 0.95 (p < 0.001) and to GOALS, SCC 0.79 (p < 0.001). YouTube videos (n = 139) with higher views, likes, or subscribers did not correlate with better quality. The average CVS and GOALS scores were no different for videos with > 20,000 views (22%) compared with those with < 20,000 (78%). CONCLUSIONS: There is an incredibly low frequency of CVS and average GOALS technical performance in frequently used online surgical videos of LC. Favorable characteristics, such as number of views or likes, do not translate to higher quality. (C) 2017 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据