Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for
- Author or Editor: Berna Güngör x
- Refine by access: All Content x
Background: The aim of this study was to measure the quality of information about “flatfoot” and “pes planus” presented online on the social media site YouTube and to determine the trends of viewers to medical information on YouTube.
Methods: “Flatfoot and pes planus” was typed into the YouTube search module. From the search results, videos with 50,000 views or more, longer than 45 seconds, and containing information about flatfoot and pes planus disease were selected. DISCERN and JAMA scoring, daily average views, number of likes, and number of comments were collected from 53 videos that met the criteria. The profession of the sharer was evaluated in terms of the information quality of the sharing and the orientation of the audience.
Results: The mean number of views per day of the examined videos was 2,047. The mean video presentation time was 8 minutes 50 seconds. The mean JAMA score was 2 of 4 and the mean DISCERN score was 38.16 of 75. According to the DISCERN score according to the professions, the video quality was moderate for doctors (41.44 ± 12.99), moderate for physiotherapists (41.91 ± 9.04), poor for coaches (32.78 ± 7.87), poor for patients (34.50 ± 5.32), and weak for others (34.89 ± 14.00). According to the Spearman correlation between DISCERN score and mean daily viewing, significant relationships were found for the doctors (P = .0102) and others groups (P = .0033); however, no significant relationships were observed for the physiotherapists group (P = .1073), the flatfoot patients group (P = .5363), and the coaches group (P = .9111). There were significant relationships between like and comment counts in all groups (doctors, P = .0088; coaches, P = .0069; physiotherapists, P = .0007; others, P =.0018; and patients, P = .0066).
Conclusions: Looking at previous studies, it was observed that the quality of online health information was historically inadequate. Likewise, in our study on YouTube, we found that the quality of flatfoot and pes planus information was poor to moderate.
Background: This study aimed to compare two-point discrimination in feet with ankle sprains and feet without ankle problems, and to determine whether there was a change in the two-point discrimination values in ankle sprains.
Methods: A total of 108 people were included in the study. These subjects were aged between 18 and 40 years and visited the Medical Faculty of Yozgat Bozok University for various reasons in July and September of 2022. These people were divided into two groups: subjects with an ankle sprain and subjects with no ankle problems. Two-point discrimination values measured in millimeters were recorded for both groups using a caliper (esthesiometer) used in six regions of 216 feet. The two-point discrimination threshold values of the feet were compared statistically according to feet with ankle sprains and feet without ankle problems, and in right and left feet.
Results: The study determined that the two-point discrimination threshold values measured at the first toe tip, heel, third plantar metatarsal head, medial malleolus, and lateral malleolus in subjects with an ankle sprain was higher than in subjects with no ankle problems. When comparing both feet of the subjects with an ankle sprain, the two-point discrimination threshold value in the heel of the foot with an ankle sprain was higher than in the heel of the foot without ankle problems.
Conclusions: The two-point discrimination threshold value was higher in subjects with an ankle sprain than in subjects with no ankle problems. The data suggest that the two-point discrimination threshold may be higher in people with an ankle sprain. Further studies are needed to better understand the two-point discrimination threshold in ankle sprains.
