Is YouTube a Reliable Source of Information for Sacral Neuromodulation in Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
Thank you for your interesting manuscript. However, there are several issues to be discussed before a possible publication.
- there is a great variety regarding the origin of the selected videos. This might cause a biased interpretation of the results. For example, in what way a Commercial Health Company video could be in the same comparative list with a Health Organization a Media video. Please explain.
- the views and the duration range seems very wide to be comparable. Please, focus on videos with a quite similar duration and views.
- probably, video from Urological Associations (EAU, AUA, ICS...) should be excluded as beyond any comparison materials. Otherwise, please discuss this extensively as one of the limitations of your study.
- conclusions could be less direct, as the methodological status seems to have a lot of limitations.
Author Response
Thank you for your interesting manuscript. However, there are several issues to be discussed before a possible publication.
Comment 1: There is a great variety regarding the origin of the selected videos. This might cause a biased interpretation of the results. For example, in what way a Commercial Health Company video could be in the same comparative list with a Health Organization a Media video. Please explain.
Answer 1: Thank you for raising this valuable point. The methodology for this study including the inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed prior to review of the videos. Therefore, to keep the integrity of this study all videos which met the criteria were included in this study. This resulted in the wide variety of video origin. Furthermore, this study is to assess accessible information for patients on this topic, if they conducted their own search they would have the same list of videos from a variety of sources. We have addressed this with a comment in the discussion section. See lines 247-250.
Comment 2: The views and the duration range seems very wide to be comparable. Please, focus on videos with a quite similar duration and views.
Answer 2: Similarly, videos were included that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria regardless of the view count. In terms of duration a maximum time was set at 15 minutes however only 3 videos were over 10 minutes and the longest was 11 minutes and 48 seconds. Furthermore, most videos (30 of the 38) range from 1 minute to 6 minutes. We have addressed this briefly in the discussion section. See lines 243-245.
Comment 3: Probably, video from Urological Associations (EAU, AUA, ICS...) should be excluded as beyond any comparison materials. Otherwise, please discuss this extensively as one of the limitations of your study.
Answer 3: This is a very important comment and the decision to include these videos was discussed between the two Urology Reviewers given the content is scientific and largely directed at health care professionals. However again as the videos met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and are accessible information for all consumers these videos were included. However, we agree that the content is not comparable to the other videos. This has been extensively discussed as a limitation of the study. See lines 250-258.
Comment 4: Conclusions could be less direct, as the methodological status seems to have a lot of limitations.
Answer 4: Thank you for raising this point, we agree, and the conclusion has been edited to address the limitations of the study and make the conclusions less direct. See lines 268-269 and 273.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The presented manuscript concerns a specific part of the treatment of overactive bladder. This disease is common and affects the quality of a significant number of patients who seek health information on various Internet sites. The risk is high that patients will not receive correct and adequate information. There are many articles about the low value of YouTube content, including the cited publications. It is appropriate to include information:
- how the quality of the videos can be increased
- what are the shortcomings of the videos
- is there incorrect information
- to include in the conclusion a recommendation, e.g. for the creation of informational videos by scientific organizations with high quality and reliable medical information
Author Response
The presented manuscript concerns a specific part of the treatment of overactive bladder. This disease is common and affects the quality of a significant number of patients who seek health information on various Internet sites. The risk is high that patients will not receive correct and adequate information. There are many articles about the low value of YouTube content, including the cited publications. It is appropriate to include information:
Comment 5: How the quality of the videos can be increased
Answer 5: Thank you for bringing up this point, we agree with this and subsequently this has been addressed as a paragraph in the discussion section of the manuscript. See lines 222-232.
Comment 6: What are the shortcomings of the videos
Answer 6: Thank you for bringing up this point, we agree with this and subsequently this has been addressed as a paragraph in the discussion section of the manuscript. See lines 222-232.
Comment 7: Is there incorrect information
Answer 7: Thank you for bringing up this point, we agree with this and subsequently this has been addressed as a paragraph in the discussion section of the manuscript. See lines 222-232.
Comment 8: To include in the conclusion a recommendation, e.g. for the creation of informational videos by scientific organizations with high quality and reliable medical information
Answer 8: Thank you for bringing up this point, we agree with this and subsequently this has been addressed at in the conclusion section of the manuscript. See lines 275-277.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I assessed the study entitled ''Is YouTube a reliable source of information for sacral nerve regulation in bladder dysfunction?'' The authors indicated that 42% of the first 50 videos on YouTube concerning sacral neuromodulation were classified as poor or extremely poor.
In recent years, numerous studies have been published about videos on platforms like YouTube. Nearly all studies indicate that the information on these sites lacks reliability. We know this clearly now. Consequently, the study's subject lacks originality and sufficient intrigue.
Author Response
I assessed the study entitled ''Is YouTube a reliable source of information for sacral nerve regulation in bladder dysfunction?'' The authors indicated that 42% of the first 50 videos on YouTube concerning sacral neuromodulation were classified as poor or extremely poor.
In recent years, numerous studies have been published about videos on platforms like YouTube. Nearly all studies indicate that the information on these sites lacks reliability. We know this clearly now. Consequently, the study's subject lacks originality and sufficient intrigue.
Answer: There has been numerous articles published addressing the quality of information for many Urological topics on YouTube. However as discussed this is the first article that addresses the use of Sacral Neural Modulation, which being a third line treatment patients that are researching this topic have likely already tried first and second line treatments. They have likely experienced disappointment with failed treatments and are desperate for another treatment option. It is important for these patient groups that the information they are accessing is accurate and reliable. Therefore, although this type of study has been published before this study still offers insight for those patients experiencing OAB.
