Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225097›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2020

Making impressions count: An evaluation of the quality of information provided by orthodontic practices in London in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Julian Woolley, Christopher Donnell, Stuart Worthington

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julian WoolleyDental Core Trainee, King's College London, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Christopher DonnellDental Core Trainee, Newcastle Dental Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Stuart WorthingtonSpecialty Regsitrar, Dental Public Health, Public Health England, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBNewcastle Dental Hospital · GBPublic Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/

objectivesAs a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, primary care specialist orthodontic practices have been limited to providing emergency treatment only. This has resulted in a cessation of normal face-to-face services and patient advice can only be offered by remote means. A service evaluation was carried out to assess the quality of information published on websites and social media pages of specialist orthodontic practices in London, against General Dental Council guidance on communication and advertising and the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) COVID-19 specific guidance for orthodontics in primary care in relation to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study also aimed to provide a gold standard template for orthodontic practices to aid in the delivery of information on a digital platform during the current (COVID-19) pandemic and future possible spikes. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll orthodontic practices providing care in the London region were identified from a CQC Database and subsequently checked against predetermined criteria based on the BOS guidance and the GDC Guidance on Ethical Advertising.

resultsOf the 83 orthodontic practices sampled; 78 had a website of which 18 (23.1%) were non-compliant with GDC guidance. Facebook pages were identified for 62 orthodontic practices. 17 practices did not provide any update in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was more frequently carried out on practice websites (78.2%) compared to Facebook pages (33.9%). A number of practices were identified as having novel strategies to manage communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionVariation was observed in information published by practices despite the regularly updated, blanket information provided by the BOS. Communication may have been delivered by a different means during the pandemic which this study did not account for. In addition, the sampling method may not have identified all practices within the London region, however the sample size seems appropriate to draw meaningful conclusions. The checklist created should help improve the delivery of future information.

Indexed as

COVID-19Digital marketingEthical advertisingOrthodontic practicePandemicSARS-Cov-2Social science

Identifiers

PMID33225097
PMCPMC7667436
OpenAlexW3105553942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.