RESUMO
Introducción: Las redes sociales (RRSS) ofrecen excelentes oportunidades para la difusión del conocimiento científico y su aplicación en el ámbito de la urología es cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, existe controversia alrededor de este tema. Los vídeos en directo compartidos a través de las plataformas de las RRSS ofrecen muchas ventajas y desventajas; existen riesgos potenciales con respecto a la confidencialidad, infracción de derechos de autor, entre otros. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el papel de los vídeos compartidos en RRSS durante los congresos de urología. Materiales y métodos: Desde enero de 2016 hasta junio de 2018, se llevó a cabo un estudio exhaustivo de los vídeos compartidos en RRSS durante el Congreso de la Asociación Europea de Urología. Se utilizaron las herramientas online Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope y YouTube para la recopilación de datos. Se analizaron las siguientes variables: el número de vídeos, el tiempo de retransmisión y las visualizaciones de cada uno. Los vídeos se clasificaron como en directo o pregrabados y como científicos o no científicos. Se utilizó SPSS V22.0 para el procesamiento de datos. Resultados: Identificamos 108 vídeos compartidos en RRSS, 292,42 minutos de retransmisión, 67732 visualizaciones. De estos 79 (73%) eran vídeos en directo, de los cuales 78 (72%) se consideraron científicos y 30 (28%) no científicos. Durante los años del estudio (2016-2018) se observó un aumento en el tiempo de retransmisión (p = 0,031), el número de vídeos, visualizaciones (p = 0,018) y vídeos en directo (p = 0,019) durante el congreso anual de la Asociación Europea de Urología. Conclusiones: La publicación de vídeos de congresos urológicos en RRSS está en constante aumento. Estos vídeos proporcionan ventajas para la comunicación, la divulgación científica y amplían el alcance de los congresos. Sin embargo, existe un riesgo potencial al compartir información en tiempo real que podría no estar en línea con las recomendaciones para el uso apropiado de las redes sociales
Introduction: Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. Materials and methods: A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. Results: We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p = .031) number of videos, views (p = .018) and live videos (p = .019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. Conclusions: Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks
Assuntos
Humanos , Disseminação de Informação/ética , Disseminação de Informação/métodos , Rede Social , Gravação em Vídeo/ética , Sociedades Médicas/ética , Urologia , Sociedades Médicas/normasRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. RESULTS: We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p=.031) number of videos, views (p=.018) and live videos (p=.019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks.