ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Content Analysis of YouTube Videos on Radiographic Anatomy on Dental Panoramic Images.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The radiographic anatomy on dental panoramic images is essential knowledge for proper diagnosis and treatment planning purposes. No prior study has examined the content of YouTube videos with regard to radiographic anatomy on panoramic radiography. The objective of this study was to provide a content analysis on these videos. The initial search string was: (panoramic anatomy). An additional search was performed with the search string: (OPG landmarks). By screening the resultant videos and their related videos (recommended by YouTube as a list on the right of the screen), a total of 62 videos were screened. Videos were excluded if they were irrelevant (e.g., focusing on radiographic errors without covering the anatomy), elaborating mainly with drawings without showing the landmarks on panoramic images, duplicate videos, and non-English speaking. Finally, 38 videos were included and analyzed. Most of them showed clear panoramic images and had clear tracing or delineation of the anatomical landmarks. On average, each video described 26 landmarks, including 12.3 from the midfacial region, 8.2 from the mandible, and 5.2 from soft tissue/air space/others. The videos were of good quality in general, with some frequent shortcomings being lack of visual aid with skull and schematic diagrams, and lack of discussion on clinical relevance. The maxillary sinus was the structure mostly involved in wrong information, particularly the wrong delineation of its posterior wall.
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.