| Popis: |
BACKGROUND Video recording of surgical procedures is increasing in popularity. They are presented in various platforms, many of which are not peer-reviewed. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) videos are widely available, however, there is limited evidence supporting the use of reporting guidelines when uploading LSG videos to create a valuable educational video. OBJECTIVE We aimed to determine the variations and establish the quality of published LSG videos, in both peer-reviewed literature and on YouTube, using a newly designed checklist to improve the quality and enhance the transparency of video reporting. METHODS A quality assessment tool was designed by using existing research and society guidelines, such as the Bariatric Metabolic Surgery Standardization (BMSS). A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify video case reports (academic videos) and a similar search was performed on the commercial YouTube platform (commercial videos) simultaneously. All videos displaying LSG were reviewed and scored using the quality assessment tool. Academic and commercial videos were subsequently compared and an evidence-based checklist was created. RESULTS A total of 93 LSG recordings including 26 academic and 67 commercial videos were reviewed. Mean score of the checklist was 5/11 and 4/11 for videos published in articles and YouTube, respectively. Academic videos had higher rates of describing instruments used, such as orogastric tube (P < 0.001) and stapler information (P = 0.04). Fifty-four percent of academic videos described short-term patient outcomes, while not reported in commercial videos (P < 0.001). Sleeve resection status was not universally reported. CONCLUSIONS Videos published in the academic literature are describing steps in greater detail with more emphasis on specific technical elements and patient outcomes and thus have a higher educational value. A new quality assessment tool has been proposed for video reporting guidelines to improve the reliability and value of published video research. |
