{{Abstract|WikiJournal of Medicine/Viewer interaction with YouTube videos about hysterectomy recovery}}
Objective: We aim to evaluate hysterectomy-recovery related videos on YouTube.
Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed videos available through the YouTube interface. We calculated the views-per-day and interactions (comments, “thumbs up or down”) per 1,000 views for relevant videos. The publishers were categorized into patients, physicians, hospitals, media, industry, nonprofit, government and “other”. Video characteristics were compared between these categories using non-parametric tests.
Results: We analyzed 2,092 YouTube videos related to hysterectomy recovery; 959 relevantt videos published from August 30, 2006 to June 16, 2017 were included. [...]
The largest number of relevant videos were published by patients (48.6%), followed by physicians (15.8%), hospitals (12.7%), media (7.8%), and industry (7.6%). Views per day were similar between videos published by patients and physicians (median 2.1, vs median 2.6, p = 0.31). Videos published by patients had more interaction in the form of “thumbs up” votes (median 8.6/1,000 views, p<0.01) and comments (median 2.7/1,000 views, p<0.01) as compared to other categories.
Conclusion: Almost half of the hysterectomy videos on YouTube are posted by patients and have more viewer interaction than other categories. Physicians should consider partnering with patient advocates to improve viewer interaction.
If more than one abstract is used on the same page, then the "toggle" parameter (from Template:Collapsible toggle) needs to be set to some integer.
{{Abstract|WikiJournal of Medicine/What are Systematic Reviews?|toggle=2}}
Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthessize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. [...]
Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study.
While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.
An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.
Use the "limit" parameter to control the (approximate) length of the uncollapsed content. Default is 600 characters.
{{Abstract|WikiJournal of Medicine/What are Systematic Reviews?|toggle=3|limit=800}}
Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviewws of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. [...]
While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.
An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.
