ArticleProgress in orthodontics2016
A quality assessment of orthodontic patient information leaflets.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2016. 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.
- Comparison of the information of generative artificial intelligence large language models and professional guidelines regarding nutritional advice for orthodontic patients.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Information-seeking behaviour in patients exploring orthognathic surgery: A qualitative study.Journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Laypeople's interpretation of, and preference for, orthodontic images.Journal of orthodontics · 2022Article
- Does one size fit all? A qualitative study about the need for individualized information transfer for orthognathic patients.Head & face medicine · 2022Article
- Development of patient information leaflets for fixed, removable, and functional appliances for Arabic-speaking orthodontic patients.The Saudi dental journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient information leaflets (PILs) are often used to reinforce and provide further information relating to treatment choices, risks, and alternatives. An assessment of the quality of commonly used orthodontic patient information leaflets is lacking.
methodsA cross-sectional assessment of patient information leaflets from two international orthodontic societies was undertaken. The quality of each leaflet was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. The readability of each leaflet was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease instrument, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate analysis was conducted.
resultsThirty-six patient information leaflets were identified. Reporting of DISCERN instrument items relating to aims, description of sources, details of additional sources, consequences of no treatment, possible treatment options, and support for a shared decision process was of low quality. The overall quality score for the total sample was 44. The median Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and SMOG index scores were 70 (interquartile range (IQR) 53.3-73.9), 7.2 (IQR 6-9.7), and 7.3 (IQR 6.7-9.1), respectively. There was a significant difference between the quality (-8.00, 95% CI: -14.62, -1.38, p < 0.001), Flesch Reading Ease (-22.30, 95% CI: -26.77, 17.83, p < 0.001) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (3.80, 95% CI: 2.74, 4.86, p < 0.001) scores between the two societies' PILs.
conclusionsIn relation to the DISCERN instrument, the quality of orthodontic PILs is deemed of moderate quality. There is a significant difference between the quality scores and the readability of PILs from different societies.
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.