ArticleHealth and technology2021
Evaluation of the quality of information on the internet about 2019 coronavirus outbreak in relation to orthodontics.
Article in Health and technology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Publishing Quality Statistics Videos on YouTube: Analysis of Sources and Publishing Formats.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Quality, readability, and transparency of Arabic online health information on temporomandibular disorders: An infodemiological analysis of 408 websites.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Validation of the Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) tool: a new tool to assess the quality of health information provided by AI platforms.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the content of information in three different search engines in terms of orthodontics as the source of information at the current stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. An internet search was conducted on April 10th, 2020, using the most popular search engines: GoogleTM, BingTM, and Yahoo!® with the keyword "coronavirus orthodontics". Top 10 websites were evaluated for each search engine. After excluding duplicates the remaining 23 sites were saved in Microsoft Excel programme and evaluated by two independent researchers (HKO and RSO; both experienced orthodontists) using the modified DISCERN tool and JAMA benchmarks. The websites were also classified as "useful, misleading and news updates". Sixty one percent of the websites were classified as useful, 26% as misleading, and 13% as news updates. Most of the authors of the websites were unknown (35%) and followed by orthodontists (30%). The DISCERN and JAMA scores of the four websites were excellent and their target audience were orthodontists. The average modified DISCERN score of 23 websites was moderate (average score 2,8). Useful websites had a significantly higher number of DISCERN and JAMA scores than the misleading 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.