ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2021
YouTube™ as a source of information on extraction of third molars.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media (PRHISM) for Evaluating Breast Cancer Treatment Videos on YouTube: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Trained to care, untrained to share: the integration of social media (#SoMe) education in dental specialty programs: a scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Are YouTube Videos a Useful and Reliable Source of Information for Patients with Temporomandibular Joint Disorders?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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
INTRODUCTION AND
aimHealthcare information is becoming more readily available and searched for online, particularly on websites such as YouTube™. The accuracy and content of these websites is often questionable. We aimed to evaluate the quality of information available on surgical extraction of wisdom teeth on YouTube™. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched for the terms 'wisdom teeth', 'third molar', and 'wisdom tooth extraction' on YouTube™. The first 3 pages of results for each search term were assessed for inclusion and were independently rated by two assessors. Three separate scales to rate the quality of online information were used-DICSERN (range 0-5), HONcode (range 0-8) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS)(range 1-5). Cohen's kappa test was used to assess inter-rater reliability.
resultsThe searches returned 179 videos, but 114 were excluded (37 duplicates, 3 unrelated, 57 non-surgical, 13 <10k views, 4 non-English). Of the 65 videos included, the average length was 6 minutes and 34 seconds, and the average percentage positivity was 89%. The mean DISCERN score was 1.47 (SD 1.13), and the mean score for GQS was 2.15 (SD 0.6). No video met all HONcode criteria with the mean score being 2.96 (SD 0.9). There was good inter-rater reliability for the DISCERN score (kappa= 0.744) and HONcode score (kappa =0.866) but less reliability for GQS (kappa = 0.204).
conclusionThe standard of information on YouTube™ on surgical extraction of wisdom teeth varies, but is of poor quality overall. Patients should be advised to be cautious of such sources for information on this topic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33608797What 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.