Assessment of the Quality of YouTube Educational Videos on Laparoscopic Right Adrenalectomy and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Surgeries.

Introduction: Despite the considerable studies conducted on the quality of YouTube surgical videos as an educational resource in other surgical fields, there have been no such studies in the field of laparoscopic urology so far. Considering the great sensitivity in these procedures and the necessity of identifying the mistakes in these videos, we aimed to evaluate the quality of YouTube educational videos on laparoscopic right adrenalectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy surgeries. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 131 YouTube educational videos on laparoscopic right adrenalectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy surgeries were reviewed. Two researchers familiar with laparoscopic urological surgery reviewed the videos based on the LAP-VEGaS checklist. A third professor reviewed the videos on which there were disagreements. Results: In the majority of the videos, the title was chosen accordingly and the surgeon was introduced appropriately. Furthermore, in most of the videos, patient anonymity was respected. The mean score of the videos was equal to 74.3 ± 5.4, the maximum score being 17 and the minimum 1. The average score of the partial nephrectomy videos was obtained as 98.3 ± 5.74, whereas the average score for adrenalectomy videos was 47.3 ± 4.5. The overall average score of the studied videos was 74.3 ± 5.40. Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that most of YouTube videos on laparoscopic right adrenalectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy surgeries are used for educational purpose. These YouTube videos are suboptimal in educational aspect and students should be advised to use them with caution.

Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio. RESULTS: In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34-12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups. CONCLUSION: According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.

Assessment of health equity consideration in Cochrane systematic reviews and primary studies on urolithiasis.

Background and Aims: Health injustice is defined as "unnecessary, preventable, unjustified and unfair health differences." One of the most important scientific sources on the prevention and management of urolithiasis are Cochrane reviews in this field. Given that the first step in eliminating health injustice is to identify the causes, the aim of the present study was to evaluate equity considerations in Cochrane reviews and the included primary studies on urinary stones. Methods: Cochrane reviews on kidney stones and ureteral stones were searched through the Cochrane Library. The included clinical trials in each of the reviews published after 2000 were also collected. Two different researchers reviewed all the included Cochrane reviews and primary studies. The researchers reviewed each PROGRESS criteria independently (P: place of residence, R: race/ethnicity/culture, O: occupation, G: gender, R: religion, E: education, S: socioeconomic status, S: social capital and networks). The geographical location of the included studies was categorized as low-income, middle-income and high-income countries, based on the World Bank income criteria. Each PROGRESS dimension was reported for both the Cochrane reviews and the primary studies. Results: In total, 12 Cochrane reviews and 140 primary studies were included in this study. None of the included Cochrane reviews had specifically mentioned the PROGRESS framework in the Method section whereas gender distribution and place of residence were reported in two and one reviews, respectively. In 134 primary studies at least one item of PROGRESS was reported. The most frequent item was gender distribution, followed by place of residence. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the authors of Cochrane systematic reviews on urolithiasis, and researchers who have conducted such trials, have rarely considered health equity dimensions when designing and performing their studies. Therefore, researchers worldwide should be motivated to study populations from low-income countries with low socioeconomic status in addition to different cultures, ethnicities, and so forth. Furthermore, RCT reporting guidelines such as CONSORT should include health equity dimensions and the editors and reviewers of scientific journals should encourage researchers to further emphasize on health equity in their studies.

Quality assessment of case reports in high-impact urology journals using SCARE guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The usefulness of case reports is dependent on the complete, consistent, and rigorous reporting of these cases. In order to provide a standard guideline for reporting surgical case reports, the SCARE (Surgical CAse REport) guidelines were developed in 2016. The present study evaluated the completeness and transparency of published case reports in high-impact urology journals based on the SCARE guideline. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed on 100 case reports published in Urology, Urology Journal, BMC Urology, and Urology Case Reports journal. Two independent reviewers performed the scoring using the last version of SCARE statement. Each of the 34 items of SCARE guideline were classified as "yes" if the item was reported in the case report text. The SCARE items were classified as "no" when the authors of case reports had not reported that item or could not tell something about reporting the item. Completeness of reporting (COR) score was calculated for each case report. COR score (%) is defined as ["yes" answers/("yes" answers + "no" answers)] × 100 for each case report. RESULTS: The mean COR score for all the assessed case reports was 49%, ranging from 21% to 79%. Topics with the highest mean COR score were introduction (77% ± 42%), additional information (75% ± 43%), patient information (65% ± 19%), and abstract (66% ± 24%). In contrast, topics with the lowest mean COR were patient perspective (1% ± 10%) and keywords (3% ± 17%). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that case reports published in urology journals suffer from insufficient reporting. SCARE or CARE guidelines can provide a framework for assessing the reporting quality of case reports before publication. Nevertheless, further studies are highly recommended to better evaluate the efficacy of these guidelines' endorsement on the quality of case reports published in urology journals.