ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2016
The Internet versus pediatricians as a source of infant teething information for parents in Turkey.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Path Model of Risk Factors for Age at Primary Tooth Eruption: A Cohort Study of Preterm and Term Infants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Comparison of information provided by pediatricians regarding tooth eruption and the information available on the internet.Dental research 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesParents are increasingly searching the Internet to gather information about their children's health care. This study compared infant teething information obtained from publically employed pediatricians in Istanbul with that obtained from different Turkish websites (parenting, health, professional, news and commercial).
methodsThis study had two parts. The first part used a descriptive design, with two checklists to assess the quality and comprehensiveness of the teething-specific content on 62 parenting or health websites. The second part was a cross-sectional study of 75 pediatricians at public hospitals who completed a structured self-administered questionnaire.
resultsIn total, 54 websites (87.1%) described infant teething as a normal developmental process. The lists that were found on the websites identified the most frequent signs of infant teething as fever and drooling/perioral rash. The most frequent management strategies were chewing non-chilled and chilled objects. For teething problems, some pediatricians recommended teething rings and oral benzocaine, while 23 pediatricians recommended nothing.
conclusionsParents should be informed by health professionals, especially regarding specific treatment strategies.
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.