Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Nurses constitute nearly 50% of the worldwide health workforce, and the World Health Organisation has advocated for an enlargement of their roles to guarantee fair health care and address the increasing need for services. The growing specialization in nursing practice has led to a rise in educational options for nurses, including the growth of PhD programs.These programs play a crucial role in preparing nurse researchers and educators. This growth underlines the importance of evidence-based practice and high-quality academic writing in nursing. The article highlights the importance of nurses’ involvement in creating evidencebased practice guidelines. The active engagement of nurses in developing evidence-based practice recommendations is essential to ensure the practicality, relevance, and grounding of these guidelines in real-world clinical experiences. The advancement of nursing depends mainly on using rigorous research procedures to generate, analyze, and disseminate knowledge and data. The current article discusses essential research methodologies, including interviews, surveys, and bibliometric and altmetric analyses. It also aims to tackle concerns about inadequate writing skills, plagiarism, and insufficient comprehension of ethical norms in research and publishing. The recommended strategies to promote nursing research and publications encompass enhancing writing skills through specialized education, embracing open-access publishing, and utilizing social media for broader distribution following publication. Implementing these approaches would increase the quality and impact of nursing publications and reinforce nursing’s role in defining health policy and enhancing the care of patients.