ArticleDentistry journal2024
Dental Practice Websites in Germany-How Do They Inform about Fluoridation?
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- [Early dental visits - a systematic analysis of the information content of national dental child health records].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2025Article
- Early prevention from the first tooth - what do German dental homepages recommend?BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fluoridation (Fl) is effective in preventing caries; however, it is unclear to what extent its use is counteracted by misinformation on the internet. This study aimed to evaluate the information provided on professional websites of German dental practices regarding fluoridation. A systematic search was performed by two independent examiners, utilizing three search engines, from 10 September 2021 to 11 December 2021. Modified, validated questionnaires (LIDA, DISCERN) were used to evaluate technical and functional aspects, generic quality, and risk of bias. Demographic information and statements about Fl were also collected. The intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments were excellent. Of the 81 websites analyzed, 64 (79%) mentioned Fl, and 31 (38%) indicated it as a primary focus. Most websites met at least 50% of the LIDA (90%) and DISCERN criteria (99%), indicating that the general quality was good. Thirty (37%) of the websites explained the impact of Fl, and forty-five (56%) indicated an opinion (for/against) on Fl. The practice location and the clinical focus were not associated with the overall quality of websites. Only a minority of websites explained the effects of Fl. Taken together, this study highlights that there is a distinct lack of good-quality information on FL.
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.