ArticleClinical oral investigations2019
Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding the Web for Quality Insights on Mouthwash Information in Brazilian Websites.International journal of dental hygiene · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Readability in Patient Education Materials for Primary Hyperparathyroidism.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- The implant treatment experience and knowledge scale: reliability and validity of a patient-reported outcome measure for dental implant therapy.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- Reliability and Accuracy of YouTube Peri-Implantitis Videos as an Educational Source for Patients in Population-Based Prevention Strategies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Quality of web-based Arabic health information on dental implants: an infodemiological study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Quality and reliability of web-based information regarding restorative treatment in pediatric patients.European oral research · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the information provided by UK dental practice websites regarding complications of dental implants.British dental journal · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the scope, quality, and health literacy demand of Internet-based anal cancer information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Patient-centered web-based information on oral lichen planus: Quality and readability.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2019Article
- Is Arabic online patient-centered information about dental extraction trustworthy? An infodemiological study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the quality, readability, and popularity of patient-oriented online information about peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe term "peri-implantitis" was searched in Google® and in Yahoo!®. The first 100 websites of each search engine were considered for further analysis. Quality was measured by DISCERN tool, and JAMA benchmarks. Readability was analyzed by Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade (FKRG), Gunning Fog index (GFI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Popularity was assessed by Alexa Popularity Rank (APR).
resultsOnly 28 websites remained after applying the exclusion criteria. The median overall DISCERN rating was 2.0 [2.0-3.0], which demonstrates the low quality of the information related to peri-implantitis. None of the websites achieved all the four JAMA benchmarks. Legibility indices showed ranges within the scores of difficult to read (FRES, 37.3 [26.9-53.9]; FKRGL, 12.8 [10.5-15.4]; GFI, 15.3 [12.5-18.0]; and SMOG, 11.1 [8.8-13.0]). Median APR was 2,228,599.0 [302,352.0-8,125,885.5].
conclusionsAvailable English-written e-health information on peri-implantitis is poor in terms of quality and the analyzed websites are beyond the reading level recommended for comprehension. The popularity measurement showed great divergences between different Web pages. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Information about peri-implantitis on the Internet is difficult to read by patients, which they are not capable of understand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30132142What 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.