Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research (no longer under consideration since Dec 04, 2023)

Date Submitted: Apr 11, 2023

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Development and evaluation of a quality assessment tool for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy videos: a review and comparison of academic and online video resources

  • Laith Alghazawi; 
  • Michael G Fadel; 
  • Jun Yu Chen; 
  • Bibek Das; 
  • Henry Robb; 
  • Maria Rita Rodriguez-Luna; 
  • Naim Fakih-Gomez; 
  • Silvana Perretta; 
  • Hutan Ashrafian; 
  • Matyas Fehervari

ABSTRACT

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 They are presented in various platforms, many of which are not peer-reviewed.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.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Alghazawi L, Fadel MG, Chen JY, Das B, Robb H, Rodriguez-Luna MR, Fakih-Gomez N, Perretta S, Ashrafian H, Fehervari M

Development and evaluation of a quality assessment tool for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy videos: a review and comparison of academic and online video resources

JMIR Preprints. 11/04/2023:48021

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.48021

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/48021

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.