ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2015
Available web-based teaching resources for health care professionals on screening for oral cancer.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- An infodemiologic review of internet resources on dental hypersensitivity: A quality and readability assessment.PloS one · 2025Article
- General dentists' knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Indonesia.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Analysis of internet educational websites on tobacco cessation: A content analysis.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Quality and readability of the dental information obtained by patients on Internet: criteria for selecting medical consultation websites.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020Article
- Patient-centered web-based information on oral lichen planus: Quality and readability.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2019Article
- Web-Based Information on the Treatment of Tobacco Dependence for Oral Health Professionals: Analysis of English-Written Websites.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify websites with adequate information on oral cancer screening for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to assess both their quality and contents. STUDY
designWebsites were identified using Google and HON medical professional search engines using the terms "screening for oral cancer". The first 100 sites retrieved by each engine were analysed using the DISCERN questionnaire (reliability), the V instrument (contents on oral cancer) and further by the Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade Level and the Flesch Reading Ease (readability).
resultsThe overall rating showed minimal shortcomings in the quality of the information in the websites. The coverage and correctness of information on "visual examination" was rated as fair/good, whereas updating of contents resulted very variable (eg: 81% for visual examination and 18.2% for molecular biomarkers). These results permitted to rank the websites housing relevant information for oral cancer. Top ranking websites were affiliated to the Oral Cancer Foundation (USA), WHO Collaborating Centre for oral cancer (UK) whose webpage is entitled "Oral Cancer Education and Research", and the Clinical Guidelines maintained by the British Columbia Cancer Agency (Canada) and the British Dental Association (UK) respectively.
conclusionsThere are web-based, HCP-addressed, resources on screening for oral cancer housing heterogeneous information both in quality and contents. The use of specific evaluation tools permits the selection of reliable websites on this topic with a potential to improve the existing educational gaps among HCPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.