ArticleBritish dental journal2020
Quality of available internet information regarding IV sedation for dental treatment.
Article in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aim Evaluate the content and quality of internet information for patients regarding intravenous sedation in dentistry.Methodology Google was queried with predefined search terms that might be chosen by patients wishing to seek information: 'dental IV sedation OR dental intravenous sedation OR dental sedation'. The first hundred search results were identified. Invalid hyperlinks and duplicates were excluded. Providers, format and location of information were extracted. For webpages detailing treatment options, the DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmark were used to determine the quality of the information provided.Results Of the first hundred search results, 89 webpages met the initial inclusion criteria. A majority (79%) originated from dental providers. Information was commonly presented as patient information leaflets. Of the 78 webpages detailing treatment options, 3% of webpages received a maximum DISCERN score of 5 and 64% a score of 1. No webpages fulfilled all JAMA criteria and 89% met only one criterion. Secondary care providers scored higher in both scales; however, this represents only 5% of the information available.Conclusion The internet is a commonly accessed information resource for patients. The quality of internet information available regarding intravenous sedation in dentistry is suboptimal. There is a need for more high-quality information resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32112021What 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.