Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-mrc2z Total loading time: 0.767 Render date: 2021-04-19T12:13:10.640Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

YouTube as a learning tool for four shoulder tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2018

Heewon Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Asayeon Choi
Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Yongjun Jang
Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Jong In Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

To analyze the use of YouTube videos as educational tools for four physical examinations of the shoulder: the Neer, Hawkins, empty can, and drop arm tests.

Background

Video-based education, which is accompanied by text-based education, can be an effective education method, especially in learning medical skills. Medical students and doctors in training often use YouTube videos to share medical education materials, and more systematic review of the reliability of these videos is required.

Methods

A search of YouTube was conducted using four keywords: ‘Neer test,’ ‘Hawkins test,’ ‘empty can test,’ and ‘drop arm test.’ Two physicians reviewed each video and recorded a variety of characteristics (date uploaded, number of views, likes and dislikes, and upload source). In addition, they scored and categorized the videos into four groups: ‘very useful,’ ‘somewhat useful,’ ‘not useful,’ and ‘misleading.’ Videos containing inappropriate content were classified as ‘misleading.’ Finally, the correlations of each video’s usefulness with viewers’ preferences and the upload source were analyzed.

Results

A total of 400 videos were assessed and 200 videos were adopted which yield eligible criteria. Out of 200 videos, 51 videos were very useful and 32 were misleading. Significant correlations were observed between the video’s usefulness and the uploaded source, as well as between the video’s usefulness and viewers’ preferences, such as the number of views, views per day, and number of likes. The proportion of videos classified as ‘very useful’ was highest (58.6%) among those uploaded by physicians and lowest (12.7%) among those uploaded by individuals. Videos uploaded by individuals had significantly lower values reflecting viewer preferences than did videos uploaded by physicians.

Conclusion

YouTube videos could be used as learning sources for shoulder physical examinations after the application of appropriate filtering processes, such as review of the upload source and viewers’ preferences.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

Introduction

Through the development of the worldwide web, the internet has become the largest and the most up-to-date reservoir of medical information (Choules, Reference Choules2007). By taking advantage of its accessibility, e-learning has become an increasingly attractive method of medical education (Pusponegoro et al., Reference Pusponegoro, Soebadi and Surya2015). Thus, many medical students and doctors now use the internet as a learning tool (Muhammed et al., Reference Muhammed, Adcock and Sen2014).

Owing to the simplicity of providing online content, a large number of medical multimedia materials are available on the internet in a variety of formats. As virtual simulation is used before performing actual procedures on real patients, videos with three-dimensional (3D) images and audio are potentially excellent educational aids for manual procedures, such as physical examinations. Several previous authors have argued that video-based education improves learning outcomes among medical students. In a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial, video instruction group of medical students significantly improved performance of venepuncture as measured by checklist score than non-video instruction group, with scores of 14.15 and 9.18, respectively, out of a total of 18 points (Pan et al., Reference Pan, Harcharik, Moskalenko, Luber, Bernardo and Levitt2014).

There are several open-access platforms, and YouTube is the second most popular website in the world following Google (www.google.com), accounting for 60% of all videos available online. Although similar websites such as Yahoo Video, MetaCafe, DropShots, and others are available for video sharing, the most popular video-hosting website is YouTube (www.youtube.com) (Azer et al., Reference Azer, Aleshaiwi, Algrain and Alkhelaif2012) and over 4 billion videos are watched around the world every day and more than 65 000 new videos are uploaded every day (Azer et al., Reference Azer, Algrain, AlKhelaif and AlEshaiwi2013). The true merit of this website is that it can be used to share medical education materials for free and can be accessed worldwide by medical students and doctors in training. However, YouTube is a consumer-generated website that is unregulated and thus carries the risk of disseminating inappropriate information.

Previous studies assessed the quality of YouTube videos as learning tools for electrocardiography (Akgun et al., Reference Akgun, Karabay, Kocabay, Kalayci, Oduncu, Guler, Pala and Kirma2014), respiratory auscultation (Sunderland et al., Reference Sunderland, Camm, Glover, Watts and Warwick2014), male urethral catheterization (Nason et al., Reference Nason, Kelly, Kelly, Burke, Aslam, Giri and Flood2015), tonic-clonic seizures (Muhammed et al., Reference Muhammed, Adcock and Sen2014), lumbar puncture, and neuroaxial block techniques (Rössler et al., Reference Rössler, Lahner, Schebesta, Chiari and Plöchl2012). Owing to the diverse quality of the content, they have been considered inadequate for educational use.

As physical examination is a procedure comprising movement in three dimensions, video examples can be extremely useful educational aids. Therefore, good-quality YouTube videos can be useful learning tools, with the added benefits of good accessibility and being cost-free. However, no study to-date has evaluated the validity of YouTube videos for shoulder physical examinations. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of educational videos of shoulder physical examinations.

Numerous shoulder physical examinations are used to diagnose shoulder disorders. As performing all of them in each patient is not feasible, physical examination is often performed selectively. According to previous studies, rotator cuff injuries lead to a high prevalence of chronic shoulder disorders, which comprise 10% of all shoulder-related diseases, and the supraspinatus muscle is most commonly involved in rotator cuff tears. Shoulder impingement syndrome is also common, with five in 1000 individuals diagnosed as new clinical cases each year (Joo et al., Reference Joo, Lee, Shin, Lee, Kim, Koh, Park, Song, Cho and Ha2017). In this study, we selected four shoulder tests for each of the rotator cuff injuries and impingement syndromes. Other studies have shown that shoulder physical examinations have high sensitivity and are useful in clinical practice (Beaudreuil et al., Reference Beaudreuil, Nizard, Thomas, Peyre, Liotard, Boileau, Marc, Dromard, Steyer, Bardin, Orcel and Walch2009; Lange et al., Reference Lange, Matthijs, Jain, Schmitt, Lutzner and Kopkow2017).

The purpose of the present study was to assess the quality of YouTube videos as educational tools for four well-known physical examinations of the shoulder: the Neer, Hawkins, empty can, and drop arm tests.

Materials and methods

The Institutional Review Board of the Catholic University of Korea approved this study and exempted it from ethical review.

Search strategy

We selected four specific examinations of the shoulder: the Neer, Hawkins, empty can, and drop arm tests. Various search terms can be derived to find YouTube clips of these examinations. For example, searches for the Neer test can be performed using keywords such as ‘Neer’s sign test,’ ‘Neer impingement test,’ and ‘Neer test.’ Using Google Trends (http://www.google.com/trends/), we selected the following keywords, which were used most frequently to search for the physical examinations: ‘Neer test,’ ‘Hawkins test,’ ‘empty can test,’ and ‘drop arm test.’

After keyword selection, YouTube searches were conducted in March 2015 (‘Neer test,’ March 1, 2015; ‘Hawkins test,’ March 10, 2015; ‘empty can test’ and ‘drop arm test,’ March 11, 2015). The only search filter used was ‘relevance,’ which is the default filter for a normal YouTube search.

Using methods described previously (Nason et al., Reference Nason, Kelly, Kelly, Burke, Aslam, Giri and Flood2015), and with the baseline assumption that no user would go beyond the first five pages of results (20 videos per page) for each search term, videos on the first five pages were screened.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only English-language videos were included in the search. Irrelevant videos and still images were excluded. Videos of sufficiently poor quality to prevent evaluation were also excluded. The same video reposted by multiple users was treated as a single video and evaluated once. For videos with content related to multiple shoulder examinations, only the sections of interest were evaluated.

Data assessment and review

Two physicians independently evaluated the videos and recorded characteristics including the date uploaded, the uploader, and the numbers of views, likes, and dislikes. Using these data, we calculated the number of days for which each video had been posted and the number of views per day. The upload sources were divided into three groups according to uploaders’ credentials: physicians, medical websites, and individuals. ‘Physician’ referred to an uploader based in an official hospital or professional organization, ‘medical website’ referred to an upload from a medical practitioner or unofficial hospital data, and ‘individual’ referred to an uploader of unknown credential (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Pandey, Venkatraman and Garg2014).

No standardized tool is available for the assessment of the quality of diagnostic information for shoulder examinations. To evaluate the quality of the videos, the authors scored the videos for each examination (Table 1), based on a review of the literature (Hermans et al., Reference Hermans, Luime, Meuffels, Reijman, Simel and Bierma-Zeinstra2013; Jain et al., Reference Jain, Wilcox, Katz and Higgins2013) and previous evaluations of YouTube videos (Akgun et al., Reference Akgun, Karabay, Kocabay, Kalayci, Oduncu, Guler, Pala and Kirma2014; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2014; MacLeod et al., Reference MacLeod, Hoppe, Simunovic, Bhandari, Philippon and Ayeni2015). The scoring system had four components, each with a total possible score of 8: purpose, performance, positive sign, and mechanism. The scoring system contained checklists for each category, and the total number of points was calculated simply by summing the checked criteria. The maximum possible score was 8, and the minimum was 0. These scores were used to categorize videos into three groups: ‘very useful’ (6–8), ‘somewhat useful’ (3–5), and ‘not useful’ (0–2). Regardless of the score, videos containing incorrect information were classified as ‘misleading.’

Table 1 Customized scoring scheme

The assessors disagreed on the categorization of 22 videos (11% of the total), and consensus was reached after discussion.

Intra- and inter-rater reliability

The intra- and inter-rater reliability of the scoring system was assessed. Two physicians evaluated all videos and used a table of random numbers to randomly select five videos per examination for re-evaluation by one researcher two weeks after the initial assessment. Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility was assessed using the weighted kappa coefficient.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed with SPSS software (version 24; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables were compared using one-way analysis of variance test with post-hoc analysis by Dunnett T3 test, and categorical variables were compared with Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.

Results

A total of 100 videos from the first five pages of search results for each examination were reviewed in March 2015. After applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 206 videos were identified. Because six videos became inaccessible during the study period, a total of 200 videos were finally assessed and analyzed: 53 videos for the Neer test, 40 videos for the Hawkins test, 49 videos for the empty can test, and 58 videos for the drop arm test (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Flowchart of the selection process of videos

Usefulness of the videos

A total of 400 videos were evaluated and adopted 200 videos which yield eligible criteria. Out of 200 assessed videos, 51 (25.5%) videos were ‘very useful,’ 108 (54%) videos were ‘somewhat useful,’ and 32 (16%) videos were ‘misleading.’ Nine (4.5%) videos were categorized as ‘not useful.’

The video category was related significantly to viewers’ preferences, that is, views, views per day, and likes (Table 2). Post-hoc analysis (Table 3) revealed more views of ‘very useful’ videos than of ‘not useful’ and ‘misleading’ videos. ‘Somewhat useful’ videos also had more viewers than ‘not useful’ and ‘misleading’ videos. The number of views per day was generally similar, but differed significantly between the ‘very useful’ and ‘somewhat useful’ groups. The number of likes was larger for ‘very useful’ videos than for videos in the other groups, and for ‘somewhat useful’ videos compared with ‘not useful’ videos.

Table 2 Video demographics according to usefulness

*P<0.05.

Table 3 Post-hoc analysis of video demographics according to usefulness

a Adjusted P-values were used in pairwise comparisons by Dunnett’s T3 test.

*P<0.05.

Video demographics according to uploader are shown in Table 4. The majority (67%) of videos were uploaded by individuals, whereas only 14.5% were uploaded by physicians. The numbers of views, views per day, and likes were consistently smaller for videos uploaded by individuals than for those uploaded by physicians (P<0.05). Video usefulness was correlated significantly with the upload source (P<0.001). The proportion of ‘very useful’ videos was largest among those uploaded by physicians (58.6%) and smallest among those uploaded by individuals (12.7%). Videos uploaded by individuals accounted for a larger proportion of those with misleading content (17.9%) than did videos uploaded by physicians (10.3%; Table 4). Videos were analyzed based on the physical examination, and no significant difference in usefulness was observed among examinations (P=0.091; Table 5).

Table 4 Video demographics according to uploader

*P<0.05, physician versus individual.

**P<0.05, Fisher’s exact test.

Table 5 Video demographics according to examination

Intra- and inter-rater reliability

A weighted kappa score for intra-rater reliability was obtained by using 20 randomly selected videos, five for each of the four examinations (κ=0.847). Inter-rater reliability was calculated for each examination using a weighted kappa score; these values showed very good agreement (Neer test, κ=0.822; Hawkins test, κ=0.868; empty can test, κ=0.907; drop arm test, κ=0.854).

Discussion

YouTube provides a large number of easily accessible videos presenting shoulder physical examinations. It could be considered an extremely helpful educational tool for shoulder physical examinations if accurate clips were selected. This study is the first attempt to assess the quality of YouTube videos as educational tools for physical examinations of the shoulder.

Shoulder pain, the third most common musculoskeletal complaint among patients visiting physicians, has a substantial impact on quality of life (Hermans et al., Reference Hermans, Luime, Meuffels, Reijman, Simel and Bierma-Zeinstra2013). Appropriate physical examination is crucial in evaluating patients with shoulder pain because it has become a cornerstone of the diagnostic process (Hegedus et al., Reference Hegedus, Goode, Campbell, Morin, Tamaddoni, Moorman and Cook2008). To ensure the reliability of shoulder physical examinations, precise performance of the procedures is necessary. Multimedia sources can be more helpful than conventional texts for such manual procedures, as they can provide virtual images in the 3D plane with audio descriptions.

Many studies have attempted to determine the value of YouTube videos on a variety of medical topics as informational tools for medical students (Azer, Reference Azer2012; Azer et al., Reference Azer, Aleshaiwi, Algrain and Alkhelaif2012; Rössler et al., Reference Rössler, Lahner, Schebesta, Chiari and Plöchl2012; Muhammed et al., Reference Muhammed, Adcock and Sen2014; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2015; Addar et al., Reference Addar, Marwan, Algarni and Berry2017) and patients (Sood et al., Reference Sood, Sarangi, Pandey and Murugiah2011; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singh and Singh2012; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Pandey, Venkatraman and Garg2014; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2014; Sorensen et al., Reference Sorensen, Pusz and Brietzke2014; MacLeod et al., Reference MacLeod, Hoppe, Simunovic, Bhandari, Philippon and Ayeni2015; Rittberg et al., Reference Rittberg, Dissanayake and Katz2016; Kwok et al., Reference Kwok, Singla, Phang and Lau2017; Cassidy et al., Reference Cassidy, Fitzgerald, Cassidy, Cleary, Byrne, Devitt and Baker2018). They have yielded negative results, due mainly to the variable quality of the videos.

Only 11% of YouTube clips that dealt with laparoscopic cholecystectomy training were rated as ‘good,’ whereas 30.1% were categorized as ‘poor’ (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2015). Conversely, 27% of videos on surface anatomy (Azer, Reference Azer2012), 47% of videos on neurologic examination (Azer et al., Reference Azer, Aleshaiwi, Algrain and Alkhelaif2012), and 18% of videos on male urethral catheterization (Nason et al., Reference Nason, Kelly, Kelly, Burke, Aslam, Giri and Flood2015) were deemed useful.

Some studies have included additional information on misleading videos, which contain content that has not been proven scientifically. The information includes 16% of videos on electrocardiography (Akgun et al., Reference Akgun, Karabay, Kocabay, Kalayci, Oduncu, Guler, Pala and Kirma2014), 56% of videos on gallstone disease (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2014), and 13% of videos on lumbar puncture and spinal anesthesia (Rössler et al., Reference Rössler, Lahner, Schebesta, Chiari and Plöchl2012) categorized as misleading. These findings imply that searchers risk accessing misleading videos when they select YouTube videos for educational purposes without using a screening process.

In analyzing viewers’ preferences, previous studies covering clips of electrocardiography, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, femoroacetabular impingement, and pediatric adenotonsillectomy and ear tube surgery revealed no significant relationship between usefulness and viewers’ responses, such as the numbers of views, likes, and dislikes (Akgun et al., Reference Akgun, Karabay, Kocabay, Kalayci, Oduncu, Guler, Pala and Kirma2014; Sorensen et al., Reference Sorensen, Pusz and Brietzke2014; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2015; MacLeod et al., Reference MacLeod, Hoppe, Simunovic, Bhandari, Philippon and Ayeni2015). Moreover, in some studies pertaining to gallstone disease and hypertension, viewers displayed a preference for misleading videos (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Pandey, Venkatraman and Garg2014; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2014).

In the present study, however, variables reflecting viewers’ preferences, such as the numbers of views and likes, were correlated significantly with video usefulness. Viewers’ preferences were also related directly to the upload source, with greater preference found for videos uploaded by professionals and medical websites than for those uploaded by individuals. These results are in disagreement with those of a previous study of videos related to gallstone disease, which showed a lack of correlation between viewers’ reactions and uploaders (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2014).

Most (67%) videos assessed in this study were posted by individual users; physicians uploaded only 14.5% of videos. Whereas 58.6% of videos uploaded by physicians were very useful, this rate dropped to 12.7% for videos uploaded by individuals. Despite the relatively small proportion, videos uploaded by professionals had the highest quality. These results correspond to those of previous studies, which suggested that the upload source was a predictor of quality (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singh and Singh2012; Akgun et al., Reference Akgun, Karabay, Kocabay, Kalayci, Oduncu, Guler, Pala and Kirma2014; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2015; Madathil et al., Reference Madathil, Rivera-Rodriguez, Greenstein and Gramopadhye2015; Ajumobi et al., Reference Ajumobi, Malakouti, Bullen, Ahaneku and Lunsford2016).

In order for YouTube video to provide credibility as objectivity and accuracy, videos with a higher score could be considered to be of educational significance. Because approximately 87% of YouTube videos uploaded by individuals were included in the ‘somewhat useful,’ ‘not useful,’ or ‘misleading’ group, they were evaluated as less useful in the context of the educational value of YouTube videos. Considering that most of the videos are uploaded by individuals, it is important to select accurate videos by filtering system so that YouTube videos can be useful as educational tools.

Even those videos uploaded by the physicians may contain misleading content that can confuse novices. In the present study, ‘misleading’ videos accounted for around 1/6 of the total number of videos analyzed, and only three videos with misleading content were uploaded by physicians: one video for the empty can test and two videos for the drop arm test. Those videos also had titles that did not match the contents, raising the possibility of confusing the viewer with inappropriate knowledge of shoulder physical examinations. We also found less viewer preference for the three misleading videos uploaded by physicians than for useful videos uploaded by physicians. Some of the misleading videos uploaded by individuals and medical websites had inappropriate content, including practitioners’ demonstration of incorrect actions or ambiguous shoulder postures, and included video advertisements.

Considering our results, extra care should be taken when using YouTube clips. In this regard, filtering YouTube videos based on viewers’ preferences and the upload source can lead to the identification of reliable educational videos on shoulder physical examinations.

This study has a few limitations. First, no validated tool for the evaluation of video quality exists. We created a scoring system based on a review of the relevant literature, which was somewhat subjective and not validated. To ensure consistency, we assessed the scoring system by two physicians in the form of a checklist and obtained significant intra-rater and inter-rater agreement. Two reviewers would not be enough to prove the reliability. Second, this study was performed in a cross-sectional manner. The exclusion of six videos because of their disappearance during the study period highlights the temporary character of YouTube. YouTube is a dynamic repository of video information and search results may vary over time (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Seo and Hong2014). In addition, our analysis was limited to content located by direct searches on the YouTube site, and the results may not apply to videos accessed from directed links on other websites. And, non-English-language videos were excluded from the analysis.

In this study, significant relationships between video usefulness and viewers’ preferences were revealed. Video usefulness was also correlated with the upload source, with higher-quality content seen among clips uploaded by official hospitals and university-affiliated organizations.

YouTube could be used as an effective informational resource if an appropriate selection process is applied. Review of the upload source and viewers’ responses could help to identify higher-quality videos on shoulder physical examinations.

Footnotes

Cite this article: Lee H, Choi A, Jang Y, Lee JI. (2018). YouTube as a learning tool for four shoulder tests. Primary Health Care Research & Development page 1 of 7. doi: 10.1017/S1463423618000804

References

Addar, A, Marwan, Y, Algarni, N Berry, G (2017) Assessment of ‘YouTube’ Content for Distal Radius Fracture Immobilization. Journal of Surgical Education 74, 799804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ajumobi, AB, Malakouti, M, Bullen, A, Ahaneku, H Lunsford, TN (2016) YouTube as a source of instructional videos on bowel preparation: a content analysis. Journal of Cancer Education 31, 755759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akgun, T, Karabay, CY, Kocabay, G, Kalayci, A, Oduncu, V, Guler, A, Pala, S Kirma, C (2014) Learning electrocardiogram on YouTube: how useful is it? Journal of Electrocardiology 47, 113117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azer, SA (2012) Can ‘YouTube’ help students in learning surface anatomy? Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 34, 465468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azer, SA, Aleshaiwi, SM, Algrain, HA Alkhelaif, RA (2012) Nervous system examination on YouTube. BMC Medical Education 12, 126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azer, SA, Algrain, HA, AlKhelaif, RA AlEshaiwi, SM (2013) Evaluation of the educational value of YouTube videos about physical examination of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, e241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaudreuil, J, Nizard, R, Thomas, T, Peyre, M, Liotard, JP, Boileau, P, Marc, T, Dromard, C, Steyer, E, Bardin, T, Orcel, P Walch, G (2009) Contribution of clinical tests to the diagnosis of rotator cuff disease: a systematic literature review. Joint, Bone, Spine: Revue du Rhumatisme 76, 1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, JT, Fitzgerald, E, Cassidy, ES, Cleary, M, Byrne, DP, Devitt, BM Baker, JF (2018) YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 26, 840845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choules, AP (2007) The use of e-learning in medical education: a review of the current situation. Postgraduate Medical Journal 83, 212216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegedus, EJ, Goode, A, Campbell, S, Morin, A, Tamaddoni, M, Moorman, CT 3rd Cook, C (2008) Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. British Journal of Sports Medicine 42, 8092 discussion.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermans, J, Luime, JJ, Meuffels, DE, Reijman, M, Simel, DL Bierma-Zeinstra, SM (2013) Does this patient with shoulder pain have rotator cuff disease? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 310, 837847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, NB, Wilcox, RB III, Katz, JN Higgins, LD (2013) Clinical examination of the rotator cuff. PMR 5, 4556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joo, H, Lee, YJ, Shin, JS, Lee, J, Kim, MR, Koh, W, Park, Y, Song, YK, Cho, JH Ha, IH (2017) Medical service use and usual care of common shoulder disorders in Korea: a cross-sectional study using the health insurance review and assessment service national patient sample. BMJ Open 7, e015848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, N, Pandey, A, Venkatraman, A Garg, N (2014) Are video sharing web sites a useful source of information on hypertension? Journal of the American Society of Hypertension 8, 481490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwok, TM, Singla, AA, Phang, K Lau, AY (2017) YouTube as a source of patient information for varicose vein treatment options. Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and Lymphatic Disorders 5, 238243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange, T, Matthijs, O, Jain, NB, Schmitt, J, Lutzner, J Kopkow, C (2017) Reliability of specific physical examination tests for the diagnosis of shoulder pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 51, 511518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, JS, Seo, HS Hong, TH (2014) YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World Journal of Gastroenterology 20, 40664070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, JS, Seo, HS Hong, TH (2015) YouTube as a potential training method for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 89, 9297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, MG, Hoppe, DJ, Simunovic, N, Bhandari, M, Philippon, MJ Ayeni, OR (2015) YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy 31, 136142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madathil, KC, Rivera-Rodriguez, AJ, Greenstein, JS Gramopadhye, AK (2015) Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics Journal 21, 173194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muhammed, L, Adcock, JE Sen, A (2014) YouTube as a potential learning tool to help distinguish tonic-clonic seizures from nonepileptic attacks. Epilepsy & Behavior 37, 221226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nason, GJ, Kelly, P, Kelly, ME, Burke, MJ, Aslam, A, Giri, SK Flood, HD (2015) YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scandinavian Journal of Urology 49, 189192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, M, Harcharik, S, Moskalenko, M, Luber, A, Bernardo, S Levitt, J (2014) Instructional video for teaching venepuncture. Clinical Teacher 11, 436441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pusponegoro, HD, Soebadi, A Surya, R (2015) Web-based versus conventional training for medical students on infant gross motor screening. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 21, 992997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rittberg, R, Dissanayake, T Katz, SJ (2016) A qualitative analysis of methotrexate self-injection education videos on YouTube. Clinical Rheumatology 35, 13291333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rössler, B, Lahner, D, Schebesta, K, Chiari, A Plöchl, W (2012) Medical information on the internet: quality assessment of lumbar puncture and neuroaxial block techniques on YouTube. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 114, 655658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, AG, Singh, S Singh, PP (2012) YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call? Journal of Rheumatology 39, 899903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sood, A, Sarangi, S, Pandey, A Murugiah, K (2011) YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology 77, 558562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, JA, Pusz, MD Brietzke, SE (2014) YouTube as an information source for pediatric adenotonsillectomy and ear tube surgery. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 78, 6570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunderland, N, Camm, CF, Glover, K, Watts, A Warwick, G (2014) A quality assessment of respiratory auscultation material on YouTube. Clinical Medicine (London) 14, 391395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 255
Total number of PDF views: 489 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th October 2018 - 19th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

YouTube as a learning tool for four shoulder tests
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

YouTube as a learning tool for four shoulder tests
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

YouTube as a learning tool for four shoulder tests
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *