ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Assessment of the quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of marketed orthodontic products: a cross-sectional investigation.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of public preference for orthodontic appliances and treatment providers: a scoping review.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Advertising of orthodontic appliances on websites in the UK: Do they comply with advertising standards? A cross-sectional study.Journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of clear aligner information on Brazilian orthodontists' websites: a DISCERN-based evaluation.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study of the Quality of Online Information on Periodontal Surgery.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of providers of marketed orthodontic products. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-one websites of orthodontic appliance and adjunct (product) providers were identified. The website content was assessed via two validated quality-of-information instruments (DISCERN and the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmarks) and an accuracy-of-information instrument. Website content was qualitatively analyzed for themes and subthemes.
resultsMore than half (n = 11; 52.3%) of the assessed websites contained clinician testimonials. The mean (SD) DISCERN score was 33.14 (5.44). No website recorded the minimum of three JAMA benchmarks required to indicate reliability. The most common content themes related to quality-of-life impact and treatment duration. Just 8% of the statements within the websites were objectively true. The Pearson correlation coefficient indicated that the DISCERN scores were correlated with the accuracy-of-information scores (r = .83; P < .001).
conclusionsThe quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of the providers of marketed orthodontic products was poor. The combined use of DISCERN and the accuracy-of-information instrument may help overcome the shortcomings of each. Clinicians should check the accuracy of information on orthodontic product provider websites before adding links to those websites on their own sites.
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.