ArticleCureus2023
Is Online Patient-Centered Information About Implant Bone Graft Valid?
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arabic web-based educational resources on iron deficiency anemia: an infodemiological study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Web-Based Educational Resources for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease: Availability and Reliability.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Assessment of Quality and Readability of Online Patient-Centered Arabic Web-Based Knowledge About Apicoectomy.Cureus · 2023Article
- Assessment of Arabic Web-Based Knowledge About Clear Aligners: An Infodemiologic Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Is Arabic online patient-centered information about dental extraction trustworthy? An infodemiological study.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Assessment of quality and readability of web-based knowledge about gummy smile: An infodemiology study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A dental implant is one of the most commonly used treatments to replace missing teeth. A reasonable number of implant cases necessitate using a bone graft before or at the time of implant placement. This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of online patient-centered information about implant bone grafts. Methodology This cross-sectional study used Google, Yahoo, and Bing search engines. The keywords were entered to screen 900 websites. The DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Health on the Net (HON) code tools evaluated the included websites for quality. The Flesch reading-ease score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and simple measure of gobbledygook tests measured readability. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results A total of 161 websites were included; 65 (40.4%) of the included websites belonged to a university or medical center. Only five (3.1%) websites were exclusively related to dental implant treatments. DISCERN showed moderate quality for 82 (50.9%) websites. There was a statistical difference between commercial and non-profit organization websites. In the JAMA evaluation, currency was the most commonly achieved in 67 (41.6%) websites. For the HON code, four (2.5%) websites were certified. Based on FRES, the most common readability category was "fair difficult," accounting for 64 (39.8%), followed by "standard" in 56 (34.8%) websites. Conclusions The study findings suggest that English-language patient-centered information about implant bone grafts is challenging to comprehend and of low quality. Hence, there is a need to establish websites that provide trustworthy, high-quality information on implant bone grafts.
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.