Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37773974›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Orthodontics social media, perceptions of science- and non-science-based posts among orthodontists, dentists, students and laypeople.

Gil Guilherme Gasparello, Sergio Luiz Mota-Júnior, Giovani Ceron Hartmann, Augusto Hideki Berlesi, Fábio Acciaris, Letícia Machado Berretta, Matheus Melo Pithon, Orlando Tanaka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Gil Guilherme GasparelloOrthodontics, Medicine and Life Science School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8955-6448
Sergio Luiz Mota-JúniorDepartment of Orthodontics, Juiz de Fora Federal University, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3601-8264
Giovani Ceron HartmannOrthodontics, Medicine and Life Science School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Augusto Hideki BerlesiOrthodontics, Medicine and Life Science School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Fábio AcciarisPrivate Practice, Santos, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3842-168X
Letícia Machado BerrettaOrthodontics, Medicine and Life Science School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Matheus Melo PithonDepartment of Orthodontics, Southwest Bahia State University-UESB, Jequié, Bahia, Brazil.
Orlando TanakaOrthodontics, Medicine and Life Science School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1052-7872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldwide, social media is gaining popularity year after year. In Brazil, by 2027, there will be more than 188 million users of social media sites, against 165 million in 2022, therefore, the usage of general population and health care professionals, including orthodontists, is increasing. Differently from scientific journals that undergo a rigorous peer review process prior to publication, the same level of demand is not found on social media. Hence, this study aimed to assess whether orthodontists can recognize scientifically based and non-science-based posts and if their perceptions are different from general opinion (laypeople), dentistry students, and dentists (non-orthodontists). The posts were created using the search tool on Instagram with the hashtags #clearaligners #acceledent #selfligatingbraces and #propelorthodontics, four scientific based posts and four without or with low scientific evidence were selected and evaluated through a virtual questionnaire in the QUALTRICS platform by 385 people, (175 laypeople, 102 dentists, 58 dentistry students, and 50 orthodontists) using a visual analogue scale (VAS). In addition, four questions were asked. ANOVA (Adjusted Bonferroni correction) and Pearson's chi-squared, and Student T tests were applied to identify statistical differences. Significant difference was found only for posts with no scientific evidence between orthodontist's group when comparing with laypeople (p < 0.001) for the #selfligatingbraces, and the #propelorthodontics for the group orthodontists when compared with laypeople (p = 0.031) and dentists (p = 0.033). Instagram was the favorite social media where most of the participants spend more than 3 h. Of the participants, 97% used social media to keep informed and read the news. Almost half of the respondents search for orthodontics services on social media. Orthodontists were able to perceive differences in only two posts from the general perception (laypeople) regarding non- or low-scientific-evidence posts.

Indexed as

OrthodonticsSocial MediaAttitude of Health PersonnelDental CareDentistsHumansOrthodontists

Identifiers

PMID37773974
PMCPMC10540967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.