PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Numerous online videos are available on sound therapy as a treatment modality for tinnitus, but it is uncertain if these videos are adequate for patient education. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of tinnitus sound therapy videos on YouTube for patient education.
UNASSIGNED: YouTube videos were searched using keywords related to \"tinnitus sound therapy\". The top 100 videos were analyzed after excluding those were repetitive, irrelevant, less than 3 min, or not in English. After categorising the videos based on their authorship and content, the video power index (VPI) was relied to determine their popularity. The DISCERN questionnaire (DISCERN), the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (JAMA), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were utilized to evaluate the quality, transparency, and patient education.
UNASSIGNED: Over half (56%) of the videos were published by professional organizations. A total of 93% of them contained sound only. Only 17% followed the recommendations of the Clinical Management of Tinnitus Guidelines, and 3% provided literature referenced by the video. A variety types of sound were used, among which music accounting for 35%. The videos were highly popular with an average views of 7,335,003.28 ± 24,174,764.02 and an average VPI of 4,610.33 ± 11,531.10. However, their quality was poor (the median scores: 38/80 for DISCERN, 2/5 for GQS, 1/4 for JAMA, and 50%/100% for PEMAT). There was a negative correlation between the popularity of the videos and their quality, indicated by PEMAT: -0.207, DISCERN: -0.307, GQS: -0.302, and JAMA: -0.233. Several dimensions of the videos require improvement, especially actionability, treatment options, and transparency with lacks of 100%, 63%, and 75% respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The tinnitus sound therapy videos available on YouTube exhibit low quality. Nevertheless, they also hold potential for health education if refined and utilized suitably.
UNASSIGNED: YouTube videos were searched using keywords related to \"tinnitus sound therapy\". The top 100 videos were analyzed after excluding those were repetitive, irrelevant, less than 3 min, or not in English. After categorising the videos based on their authorship and content, the video power index (VPI) was relied to determine their popularity. The DISCERN questionnaire (DISCERN), the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (JAMA), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were utilized to evaluate the quality, transparency, and patient education.
UNASSIGNED: Over half (56%) of the videos were published by professional organizations. A total of 93% of them contained sound only. Only 17% followed the recommendations of the Clinical Management of Tinnitus Guidelines, and 3% provided literature referenced by the video. A variety types of sound were used, among which music accounting for 35%. The videos were highly popular with an average views of 7,335,003.28 ± 24,174,764.02 and an average VPI of 4,610.33 ± 11,531.10. However, their quality was poor (the median scores: 38/80 for DISCERN, 2/5 for GQS, 1/4 for JAMA, and 50%/100% for PEMAT). There was a negative correlation between the popularity of the videos and their quality, indicated by PEMAT: -0.207, DISCERN: -0.307, GQS: -0.302, and JAMA: -0.233. Several dimensions of the videos require improvement, especially actionability, treatment options, and transparency with lacks of 100%, 63%, and 75% respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The tinnitus sound therapy videos available on YouTube exhibit low quality. Nevertheless, they also hold potential for health education if refined and utilized suitably.
摘要：
■许多在线视频可用于声音疗法作为耳鸣的治疗方式，但是不确定这些视频是否足以对患者进行教育。这项研究旨在评估YouTube上用于患者教育的耳鸣声音治疗视频的质量和可靠性。
■使用与“耳鸣声音疗法”相关的关键字搜索YouTube视频。在排除那些重复的视频后，对排名前100位的视频进行了分析，无关紧要，少于3分钟，或者不是英语。根据作者身份和内容对视频进行分类后，视频功率指数(VPI)来确定它们的受欢迎程度。DISCERN问卷(DISCERN)，全球质量评分(GQS)，美国医学会杂志基准标准(JAMA)，并利用患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)来评估质量，透明度，和病人的教育。
■超过一半（56%）的视频是由专业机构发布的。总共有93%只包含声音。只有17％遵循耳鸣临床管理指南的建议，3%的人提供了视频引用的文献。使用了各种类型的声音，其中音乐占35%。这些视频非常受欢迎，平均观看次数为7,335,003.28±24,174,764.02，平均VPI为4,610.33±11,531.10。然而,他们的质量很差(中位数：38/80的DISCERN，GQS的2/5，JAMA的1/4,PEMAT为50%/100%)。视频的受欢迎程度和质量之间存在负相关，PEMAT：-0.207，DISCERN：-0.307，GQS：-0.302，JAMA：-0.233。视频的几个维度需要改进，尤其是可操作性，治疗方案,缺乏100%的透明度，63%,分别为75%。
■YouTube上提供的耳鸣声音治疗视频质量低下。然而，如果完善和适当利用，它们也具有健康教育的潜力。
■使用与“耳鸣声音疗法”相关的关键字搜索YouTube视频。在排除那些重复的视频后，对排名前100位的视频进行了分析，无关紧要，少于3分钟，或者不是英语。根据作者身份和内容对视频进行分类后，视频功率指数(VPI)来确定它们的受欢迎程度。DISCERN问卷(DISCERN)，全球质量评分(GQS)，美国医学会杂志基准标准(JAMA)，并利用患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)来评估质量，透明度，和病人的教育。
■超过一半（56%）的视频是由专业机构发布的。总共有93%只包含声音。只有17％遵循耳鸣临床管理指南的建议，3%的人提供了视频引用的文献。使用了各种类型的声音，其中音乐占35%。这些视频非常受欢迎，平均观看次数为7,335,003.28±24,174,764.02，平均VPI为4,610.33±11,531.10。然而,他们的质量很差(中位数：38/80的DISCERN，GQS的2/5，JAMA的1/4,PEMAT为50%/100%)。视频的受欢迎程度和质量之间存在负相关，PEMAT：-0.207，DISCERN：-0.307，GQS：-0.302，JAMA：-0.233。视频的几个维度需要改进，尤其是可操作性，治疗方案,缺乏100%的透明度，63%,分别为75%。
■YouTube上提供的耳鸣声音治疗视频质量低下。然而，如果完善和适当利用，它们也具有健康教育的潜力。
