↓ Skip to main content

Everything is ok on YouTube! Quality assessment of YouTube videos on the topic of phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil

Overview of attention for article published in International Ophthalmology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Everything is ok on YouTube! Quality assessment of YouTube videos on the topic of phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil
Published in
International Ophthalmology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10792-018-0823-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aslan Aykut, Amber Senel Kukner, Bugra Karasu, Yeliz Palancıglu, Fatih Atmaca, Tumay Aydogan

Abstract

Usage of YouTube as an educational tool is gaining attention in academic research. To date, there has been no study on the content and quality of eye surgery videos on YouTube. The aim of this study was to analyze YouTube videos on phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil. We searched for the phrases "small pupil cataract surgery," "small pupil phacoemulsification," "small pupil cataract surgery complications," and "small pupil phacoemulsification complications" in January 2015. Each resulting video was evaluated by all authors, and Krippendorff's alpha was calculated to measure agreement. Videos were classified according to pupil size (small/very small) in the beginning of the surgery, and whether pupillary diameter was large enough to continue surgery safely after pupillary dilation by the surgeon in the video (safe/not safe). Methods of dilatation were also analyzed. Any stated ocular comorbidity or surgical complications were noted. A total of 96 videos were reviewed. No mechanical intervention for pupillary dilatation was performed in 46 videos. Fifty-eight operated eyes had no stated ocular comorbidity. Ninety-five operations ended successfully without major complication. There was fair agreement between the evaluators regarding pupil sizes (Kα = 0.670) but poor agreement regarding safety (Kα = 0.337). YouTube videos on small pupil phacoemulsification have low complication rates when compared to the literature, although no reliable mechanical dilatation methods are used in almost half of these videos. Until YouTube's place in e-learning becomes clearer, we suggest that viewers be cautious regarding small pupil phacoemulsification videos on YouTube.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 42%
Social Sciences 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 25%
Engineering 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,931,954
of 12,406,609 outputs
Outputs from International Ophthalmology
#246
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,832
of 339,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Ophthalmology
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,406,609 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.