ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2020
Quality and readability of the dental information obtained by patients on Internet: criteria for selecting medical consultation websites.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2020. 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.
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
backgroundThe main objective of this study is to examine the quality of the information available for patients online with regards to the apicoectomy surgical procedure, both on general and critically selected websites. The hypothesis is that general websites has less quality than other that have been pre-selected. MATERIAL AND
methodsA search for the English term "apicoectomy" was performed online. The first 100 websites that appeared in both Google and Yahoo were analysed. Seven validated instruments were used for these two dimensions: quality (DISCERN, JAMA and EQIP), and readability (FRES, Fog Scale, FKRGL and SMOG).
resultsA total of 21 websites (10.5%) were selected. The readability of the websites in both groups was difficult or very difficult. With regards to the quality of the websites, the DISCERN instrument indicated an average value of 2.28 [2.14-2.39] for all of the websites, therefore indicating very low quality with serious defects; however, in the selected websites, the average quality was 3.16 [2.84-3.48], indicating potential, but not serious defects (p<0.001). There were statistically significant differences for the FRES values (p = 0.030), with a greater readability in the selected group of websites.
conclusionsWe believe that it is very important for the population to become aware of and learn how to use certain exclusion criteria when selecting medical consultation websites, as in doing so, they will be able to obtain a higher quality of information from these websites.
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.