Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34269827›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2022

Information on the Internet about clear aligner treatment-an assessment of content, quality, and readability.

Mehmed Taha Alpaydın, Suleyman Kutalmış Buyuk, Nehir Canigur Bavbek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Mehmed Taha AlpaydınDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey.
Suleyman Kutalmış BuyukDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey. skbuyuk@gmail.com.
Nehir Canigur BavbekDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe goal was to evaluate the content, quality, and readability of the information available about clear aligner treatment on the Internet. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe search terms "aligner," "clear aligner," and "Invisalign" (Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA) were analyzed in three search engines (Google [Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA], Bing [Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA], and Yahoo [Yahoo, Sunnyvale, CA, USA]). The first 50 websites for each keyword in each search engine were screened. Duplicate websites, advertisements, links to scientific articles, videos, and other irrelevant websites were excluded. The quality of the remaining websites was analyzed using the DISCERN and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark instruments together with the Health on the Net code (HONcode, Health On the Net Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland). The readability of the websites was evaluated by the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analyses were performed by one-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis and Fischer's exact tests, with p < 0.05 accepted to be statistically significant.

resultsAmong 111 evaluated websites, most belonged to multidisciplinary dental clinics (n = 49; 44.2%), followed by aligner companies (n = 26; 23.4%), orthodontists (n = 26; 23.4%), and professional organizations (n = 10; 9%). The mean DISCERN score (sections 1 and 2) for all websites was 29.95/75. The average FRES and FKGL were 55.77 and 9.74, respectively. Professional organization websites had significantly higher DISCERN scores than others (p < 0.001), and together with multidisciplinary dental clinic websites, they showed better compliance with JAMA benchmark criteria. Professional organization websites' FRES and FKGL were also higher than other websites (p > 0.05).

conclusionsOverall, the quality of web-based information about clear aligners was poor and the readability of the data was insufficient. Websites presenting high-quality data with better readability are needed for potential aligner patients.

Indexed as

ComprehensionOrthodontic Appliances, RemovableHumansInternetReadingSearch EngineUnited StatesClear aligner appliancesConsumer informationOrthodontic appliances, removableOrthodonticsQuality of information

Identifiers

PMID34269827
PMCPMC8284032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.