Content quality and reliability of YouTube videos on oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic analysis

Introduction YouTube's popularity as a health information source raises concerns about credibility due to the absence of peer review. Therefore, this study assessed the content quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Special care in dentistry 2024-09, Vol.44 (5), p.1307-1316
Hauptverfasser: Selvaraj, Madhanraj, Sennimalai, Karthik, Parija, Pragyan Paramita, Siddiqui, Hamza Parvez, Singh, Amardeep, Mohaideen, Kaja
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction YouTube's popularity as a health information source raises concerns about credibility due to the absence of peer review. Therefore, this study assessed the content quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods Videos were systematically searched on August 20, 2023, using terms determined through Google Trends. Videos were included based on predefined criteria and independently assessed by two researchers. Video demographics were extracted. Video quality was evaluated using audio‐visual (AV) quality, video information and quality index (VIQI), global quality score (GQS), and reliability using a modified DISCERN tool (mDISCERN). High and low‐content videos were defined based on the customized 10‐point scoring system. Inter‐ and intra‐examiner reliability of scoring system were calculated. Results Most videos were educational (46.3%), presented by dental sleep medicine specialists (42.6%), and aimed at laypersons (63%), with the majority originating from the United States (79.6%). The final 54 videos were categorized as high‐content (n = 29, 54%) and low‐content (n = 25, 46%). High‐content videos had more views, comments, and longer video durations (7.07 ± 6.04 min). Significant differences (p 
ISSN:0275-1879
1754-4505
1754-4505
DOI:10.1111/scd.12995