ArticleBritish dental journal2020
Post-operative instructions following minor oral surgery - the quality and level of evidence: a cross-sectional study.
Article in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of two designs for an Oral surgery Postoperative Leaflet.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes After Dental Surgery with Two Antiseptic Protocols.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
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
Aims To assess the quality of information targeting lay people regarding post-operative instructions after minor oral surgery (MOS), and to determine the level of evidence of any scientific articles cited in the instructions.Design and setting A dynamic Internet-based cross-sectional study.Materials and methods An Internet search for professional organisations/specialist dental societies in ten English-speaking countries with a search of their websites was conducted to locate post-operative instructions. Where not readily available, these were requested from each respective organisation/society. Reliability and quality of the instructions were assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Evidence level of cited articles was analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence.Results Of the 59 identified organisations/societies, 26 sets of instructions were assessed. Overall quality of information was low, represented by median scores of 45%, 42.9% and 42.7% for reliability, quality of information and total DISCERN score, respectively. Only two instructions cited articles to support their content; these were of moderate-low level evidence.Conclusion Post-operative instructions following MOS that target the lay public have low quality and cite articles of moderate-low level evidence to support their content. Peak organisations should ensure such content is easily locatable, of high quality and is supported by high-level evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32541748What 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.