ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2019
Patient-centered web-based information on oral lichen planus: Quality and readability.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2019. 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.
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Accuracy and Health Information Quality in Oral Mucosal Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Patient-Centred Web-Based Information on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Quality and Readability.Oral diseases · 2026Article
- Quality and Readability Assessment of Patient-Centered Online Information on Apical Surgery.International dental journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Information Provided by ChatGPT Versions on Traumatic Dental Injuries for Dental Students and Professionals.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025Article
- Quality and readability of web-based information on dental caries in Arabic: an infodemiological study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the information provided by UK dental practice websites regarding complications of dental implants.British 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the readability and quality of web-based information available for patients about oral lichen planus (OLP). MATERIAL AND
methodsThree major search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo!) were used to identify websites of particular interest to the study using the search term 'oral lichen planus'. The first 100 sites of each search engine were considered for the study. The quality of the contents was evaluated using the DISCERN instrument. The Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) and the Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRES) were used to assess readability. The presence of the Health on the Net (HON) seal was also evaluated.
resultsFollowing the application of the study's exclusion criteria, only 28 websites were compiled for further analysis. The median of the DISCERN instrument was 3 [2-3] which means serious or potentially important shortcoming in the quality of the information. Readability indexes pointed to a high reading difficulty (FRES: 48.14±11.22; FKRGL:11.13±2.90).
conclusionsThe information provided by the Internet to the general public regarding OLP has major deficits in terms of quality, and at the same time is difficult for a comprehensive reading. Further studies are warranted to test well-produced patient-centered information on OLP.
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.