bims-librar Biomed News
on Biomedical librarianship
Issue of 2019‒07‒28
four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(30): e16459
    Abdulghani HM, Haque S, Ahmad T, Irshad M, Sattar K, Al-Harbi MM, Khamis N.
      BACKGROUND: Video-sharing website "YouTube" is a growing source of healthcare information. But, the videos uploaded on this open platform are not peer reviewed, therefore, the information available needs to be sufficiently evaluated. No studies have been conducted to evaluate the authenticity and utility of obstetrics and gynecology (Obs/Gyne) physical examination YouTube videos. This study was performed to analyze the sources, contents, and quality of videos about the Obs/Gyne clinical examination available on YouTube.METHODS: A systematic search was performed on YouTube website using the following key words: "OBSTETRIC," "GYNECOLOGICAL," "SPECULUM OBSTETRIC," "OBSTETRIC CLINICAL," "BIMANUAL PELVIC," and "EXAMINATION" to analyze the sources, contents, and the quality of YouTube videos about the Obs/Gyne clinical examination during the period between November 2015 and March 2017. The videos were classified into educationally useful and useless based on the content, accuracy of the knowledge, and the demonstration.
    RESULTS: Out of total 457 screened videos, 176 (38.51%) videos met the pre-set inclusion criteria. After review, out of 176 pertinent videos, 84 (47.7%) videos were found educationally useful, and out of these 84 useful videos, only 29 (34.5%) were highly educational in nature.
    CONCLUSION: YouTube videos showed variable educational value. Only, a small number of videos were identified as useful and can be used by the medical students for self-directed learning and by the clinical teachers for educational purposes or other academic activities.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016459
  2. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul 16. pii: S0090-8258(19)31347-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Samuel D, Vilardo N, Isani SS, Kuo DYS, Gressel GM.
      OBJECTIVE: Patients are increasingly using online materials to learn about gynecologic cancer. Providers can refer patients to online educational materials produced by a number of different major medical organizations and pharmacology companies. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA) recommend that patient educational materials (PEMs) are written between a sixth and eighth grade reading level. In this study, we assess the readability of online PEMs published by major medical organizations and industry partners.METHODS: Websites from twelve websites providing educational materials for gynecologic oncology patients were surveyed. Online PEMs were identified and analyzed using seven validated readability indices. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc analysis were performed to detect differences in readability between publishers.
    RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty PEMs were included in this analysis. Overall, PEMs were written at a mean 11th±0.6 grade reading level. Only 6.5% of articles were written at the AMA/NIH recommended reading grade level of 6th to 8th grade or below. ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in readability between publishing associations (p<0.01). PEMs from the Centers for Disease Control had a mean 9th±1.2 grade reading level and were significantly lower than all other organizations. PEMs from The Foundation for Women's Cancer had a mean 13th±1.8 grade reading level and were significantly higher than most other organizations. PEMs from pharmaceutical companies (mean readability=10.1±1.1, N=30) required the lowest reading grade level and were significantly more readable than those from governmental organizations (11.1±1.7, p<0.05) and nonprofit medical associations (12.4±1.7, p<0.01) in ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post hoc analysis.
    CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology PEMs available from twelve major organization websites are written well above the recommended sixth to eighth grade reading difficulty level.
    Keywords:  Disparities; Health literacy; Online health resources; Patient education; Readability
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.06.026
  3. J Voice. 2019 Jul 22. pii: S0892-1997(19)30132-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Dueppen AJ, Bellon-Harn ML, Manchaiah V.
      PURPOSE: The study was aimed at assessing the suitability of English-language Internet health information related to vocal hygiene, vocal health, and prevention of voice disorders. We also examined the relation between suitability, readability, and quality of Internet health information.METHOD: Suitability of 77 websites from Dueppen et al9 was assessed using the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Information about readability and quality of the websites were extracted from Dueppen et al.9 RESULTS: The overall converted suitability percent score of all 77 websites was 66.4%, which represents "adequate" suitability. Individual websites were rated as superior (ie, 44.2%) adequate (ie, 51.9%), and not suitable (ie, 3.9%). No relation was found between website origin and the suitability ratings. The inter-rater reliability of the Suitability Assessment of Materials ratings for overall scale was found to be good. The suitability of websites had a moderate correlation with readability measures, but no significant correlation was observed between the suitability and quality of websites.
    CONCLUSIONS: The study results suggest that overall suitability of websites on vocal hygiene are adequate. However, many websites may require improvements in some elements (eg, literacy demand, graphics, and learning stimulation). Readability, quality, and suitability are important components in the accessibility of health information for people with different health conditions. Hence, improvements in these elements are expected to improve the understanding and actionability of people with voice issues.
    Keywords:  Accessibility; Internet health information; Suitability; Vocal health; Vocal hygiene; Voice disorders
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.06.011
  4. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1): 152
      [This corrects the article on p. 316 in vol. 105, PMID: 28983195.].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.410