ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2018
The Accuracy of Information about Orthodontics Available on the Internet.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating breast cancer websites targeting Arabic speakers: empirical investigation of popularity, availability, accessibility, readability, and quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the content of the informative websites related to orthodontic terms in Turkish and in English.
methodsFive different orthodontic terms ("orthodontic appliances (ortodontik aygıtlar)," "orthodontic braces (ortodontik braketler)," "orthodontic elastics (ortodontik elastikler)," "orthognathic surgery (ortognatik cerrahi)," and "orthodontic treatment (ortodontik tedavi)") both in Turkish and in English were searched using Google. There were 25 websites evaluated for each term. A total of 137 different websites were evaluated with three measurement tools: DISCERN (questionnaire, University of Oxford, 1999) (quality of information), LIDA (v1.2 Minervation, 2007) (accessibility, usability, and reliability), and AChecker (v0.1 ATutor, 2011) (accessibility).
resultsThe mean overall score of the quality of information was "good" for terms in Turkish and in English. The LIDA score was classified as "moderate" for terms in Turkish and in English. More accessibility errors were found on the Turkish websites than on the English counterparts. Most of the statistical evaluations between Turkish and English terms were insignificant. However, intragroup evaluation of the terms mostly showed significant differences.
conclusionAccessibility, usability, and reliability; quality of information; and scores of access errors showed variations among Turkish and English sites. The collaboration of website designers and clinicians to increase the quality level of the websites is recommended.
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.