Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39010000›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Bruxism treatment on Youtube: evaluating reliability and information accuracy.

Onur Odabaşı, Güzin Neda Hasanoğlu Erbaşar, Kevser Sancak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Onur OdabaşıDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey. onurodabasi88@gmail.com.
Güzin Neda Hasanoğlu ErbaşarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.
Kevser SancakDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the content and quality of videos about bruxism treatments on YouTube, a platform frequently used by patients today to obtain information.

methodsA YouTube search was performed using the keywords "bruxism treatment" and "teeth grinding treatment". "The sort by relevance" filter was used for both search terms and the first 150 videos were saved. A total of 139 videos that met the study criteria were included in the study. Videos were classified as poor, moderate or excellent based on a usefulness score that evaluated content quality. The modified DISCERN tool was also used to evaluate video quality. Additionally, videos were categorized according to the upload source, target audience and video type. The types of treatments mentioned in the videos and the demographic data of the videos were recorded.

resultsAccording to the usefulness score, 59% of the videos were poor-quality, 36.7% were moderate-quality and 4.3% were excellent-quality. Moderate-quality videos had a higher interaction index than excellent-quality videos (p = 0.039). The video duration of excellent-quality videos was longer than that of moderate and poor-quality videos (p = 0.024, p = 0.002). Videos with poor-quality content were found to have significantly lower DISCERN scores than videos with moderate (p < 0.001) and excellent-quality content (p = 0.008). Additionally, there was a significantly positive and moderate (r = 0.446) relationship between DISCERN scores and content usefulness scores (p < 0.001). There was only a weak positive correlation between DISCERN scores and video length (r = 0.359; p < 0.001). The videos uploaded by physiotherapists had significantly higher views per day and viewing rate than videos uploaded by medical doctors (p = 0.037), university-hospital-institute (p = 0.024) and dentists (p = 0.006). The videos uploaded by physiotherapists had notably higher number of likes and number of comments than videos uploaded by medical doctors (p = 0.023; p = 0.009, respectively), university-hospital-institute (p = 0.003; p = 0.008, respectively) and dentists (p = 0.002; p = 0.002, respectively).

conclusionsAlthough the majority of videos on YouTube about bruxism treatments are produced by professionals, most of the videos contain limited information, which may lead patients to debate treatment methods. Health professionals should warn patients against this potentially misleading content and direct them to reliable sources.

Indexed as

BruxismSocial MediaVideo RecordingHumansReproducibility of ResultsBruxism treatmentDiscernInternetPatient informationYoutube

Identifiers

PMID39010000
PMCPMC11250974

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.