Abstract
Introduction and aim
Healthcare information is becoming more readily available and searched for online, particularly on websites such as YouTube™. The accuracy and content of these websites is often questionable. We aimed to evaluate the quality of information available on surgical extraction of wisdom teeth on YouTube™.
Materials and methods
We searched for the terms ‘wisdom teeth’, ‘third molar’, and ‘wisdom tooth extraction’ on YouTube™. The first 3 pages of results for each search term were assessed for inclusion and were independently rated by two assessors. Three separate scales to rate the quality of online information were used—DICSERN (range 0–5), HONcode (range 0–8) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS)(range 1-5). Cohen’s kappa test was used to assess inter-rater reliability.
Results
The searches returned 179 videos, but 114 were excluded (37 duplicates, 3 unrelated, 57 non-surgical, 13 <10k views, 4 non-English). Of the 65 videos included, the average length was 6 minutes and 34 seconds, and the average percentage positivity was 89%. The mean DISCERN score was 1.47 (SD 1.13), and the mean score for GQS was 2.15 (SD 0.6). No video met all HONcode criteria with the mean score being 2.96 (SD 0.9). There was good inter-rater reliability for the DISCERN score (kappa= 0.744) and HONcode score (kappa =0.866) but less reliability for GQS (kappa = 0.204).
Conclusion
The standard of information on YouTube™ on surgical extraction of wisdom teeth varies, but is of poor quality overall. Patients should be advised to be cautious of such sources for information on this topic.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bishara SE, Andreasen G (1983) Third molars: a review. Am J Orthod 83(2):131–137
Dachi SF, Howell FV (1961) A survey of 3,874 routine full-mouth radiographs: II. A study of impacted teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 14(10):1165–1169
Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C (2014) Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield? Can Fam Physician 60(5):407–408
Hanna K, Brennan D, Sambrook P, Armfield J (2015) Third molars on the Internet: a guide for assessing information quality and readability. Interact J Med Res 4(4):e19
The Office for National Statistics. Internet access – households and individuals, Great Britain: 2018. (Internet) (7th August 2018, accessed 1st March 2019) Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2018
Giustini D (2006) How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. BMJ 333:1283–1284
Hosting Facts. Internet Statistics for 2019. (Internet) (Updated 17th December 2018, accessed 21st March 2019) Available from: https://hostingfacts.com/internet-facts-stats/
Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP (2012) YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 39(5):899–903
Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, Cleary M, Byrne DP, Devitt BM, Baker JF (2018) YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(3):840–845
Jansen B, Spink A.: An analysis of web documents retrieved and viewed. In: The 9th International Conference on Internet Computing. Las Vegas, Nevada, June 2003 Accessed 7 May 2016. Available from https://faculty.ist.psu.edu/jjansen/academic/pubs/pages_viewed.pdf.
Saraswat I, Abouassaly R, Dwyer P, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N (2016) Female urinary incontinence health information quality on the Internet: a multilingual evaluation. Int Urogynecol J 27(1):69–76
LLawrentschuk N, Sasges D, Tasevski R, Abouassaly R, Scott AM, Davis ID (2012) Oncology health information quality on the Internet: a multilingual evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol 19(3):706–713
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):105–111
Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28(5):603–610
The Health on the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites (HONcode) [Internet]. [cited 22nd February 2019]. Available from: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/
Pant S, Deshmukh A, Murugiah K, Kumar G, Sachdeva R, Mehta JL (2012) Assessing the credibility of the “YouTube approach” to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 35(5):281–285
Grohol JM, Slimowicz J, Granda R (2014) The quality of mental health information commonly searched for on the Internet. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 17(4):216–221
Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Van Zanten SV (2007) A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 102(9):2070–2077
BBC News. One billion hits a day on YouTube. [Internet. Accessed January 26, 2012.] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299951.stm
Alltechnology news. YouTube 2 billion videos viewed every day. [Internet. Accessed January 26, 2012.] Available from: http://www.alltechnologynews.com/ youtube-2-billion-videos-viewed-every-day.html
AAldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT (2011) Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthodont 34(4):466–469
Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C (2016) YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 22(3):202–208
Jayaratne YS, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA (2014) Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(12):1319–1324
Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, Burke MJ, Aslam A, Giri SK, Flood HD (2015) YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scandinavian J Urol 49(2):189–192
Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK (2015) Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J 21(3):173–194
Olsen BT, Sherwood CJ, Carrico CK, Priest JH, Laskin DM (2017) Patient recall of information on a third molar informed consent video. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75(12):2507–2511
Tanidir AN, Atac MS, Karacelebi E (2016) Informatıon given by multımedıa: influence on anxıety about extractıon of impacted wısdom teeth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54(6):652–657
Laskin DM, Priest JH, Alfaqih S, Carrico CK (2018) Does viewing a third molar informed consent video decrease patients' anxiety? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 76(12):2515–2517
Elhassan Y, Sheridan G, Nassiri M, Osman M, Kiely P, Noel J (2015) Discectomy-related information on the internet: does the quality follow the surge? Spine. 40(2):121–125
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sofia Kidy, David McGoldrick and Peter Stockton. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sofia Kidy, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kidy, S., McGoldrick, D.M. & Stockton, P. YouTube™ as a source of information on extraction of third molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg 25, 519–524 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00941-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00941-3