ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2022
An assessment of the Quality of Information for Patients on YouTube™ Regarding Orthodontic Elastics.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Quality and content assessment of internet information on nasoalveolar molding.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Orthodontic Elastics: A Multivariable Analysis of YouTubeClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Article
- Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): A Cross-Sectional Observational Study Analyzing the Quality of Content on YouTube.Cureus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to investigate the quality of the information available to patients on YouTube™ concerning orthodontic elastics.
methodsA systematic search was carried out on YouTube™ using the keyword "elastics." The first 120 videos were viewed by 2 independent reviewers, and after the inclusion criteria were applied, 39 videos were excluded from the study. Demographic data of the videos were collected for the remaining 81 videos. For each video, its purpose, target audience, and source were also recorded. A 10-point content scale was used to evaluate the video content. The Global Quality Scale was also used to determine the quality of the videos. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation coefficient analyses were performed using Spearman's rho.
resultsIn total, 36% of the included videos were uploaded by dentists and 22% by laypersons. In 77% of the videos, the purpose was to inform laypersons, and in 4%, the purpose was to inform professionals only. The content discussed the most (85.2%) was the instruction of orthodontic elastics use. The mean 10-point Content Scale score and Global Quality Scale score of the videos were 2.25 ± 1.99 (poor) and 2.60 ± 0.73 (moderate), respectively. There was a positive correlation between 10-point Content Scale and Global Quality Scale score (r = 0.258).
conclusionThe information available on YouTube™ regarding orthodontic elastics is quite poor and can be misleading for patients. Therefore, health professionals with evidence-based knowledge and clinical experience should improve the way they use YouTube™ to inform patients about the correct use of orthodontic elastics and to improve compliance with wearing orthodontic elastics.
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.