Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25377845›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2014

The quality of online information regarding dental implants.

S Ali, K Woodmason, N Patel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S AliAcademic Clinical Fellow in Special Care Dentistry, Bristol Dental Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY.
K WoodmasonDental Core Trainee, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH.
N PatelAcademic Clinical Fellow in Oral Surgery, The University of Manchester, School of Dentistry, Coupland 3 Building, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

objectivesTo analyse the quality of online information available to patients regarding dental implants.

designCross sectional survey.Setting The websites analysed were UK based, owned by private practices and NHS secondary and tertiary care services. Information was collated in November 2013.

methodsUK-based websites were analysed using UK based search engines.Outcome measures Websites were analysed based on content and reliability. Information regarding the speciality of authors and accreditation/affiliation to professional groups/medical institutions was also collated.

resultsOverall, website content quality was low, with 63% of sites averaging below 7/14 for their mean summed website content scores, and 67% of sites averaging below 8/16 for their mean reliability scores. 86.7% were accredited by a recognised national/international dental/surgical body but only 26.7% were affiliated to a professional group/medical institution. The authors were mainly dentists (73.3%).

conclusionsThese findings suggest that the online information regarding implant treatment is generally of low quality and many aspects such as long term outcomes and complications are overlooked. There is a need for the improvement of the quality of online information available to patients in order to make the best use of this tool in helping patients to make informed choices about their dental care. The Internet has the potential to dramatically change the clinician-patient relationship. Moreover, in light of the guidelines produced by the General Dental Council (GDC) in 2012 on the principles of ethical advertising, GDC registrants run the risk of fitness to practise proceedings and medico-legal challenges if the website content has potential to mislead patients.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsInformation ServicesInternetUnited KingdomDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID25377845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.