ArticleDigital health
Is Arabic online patient-centered information about dental extraction trustworthy? An infodemiological study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessment of the Arabic online patient-centered information is understudied. The study aims to assess the quality and readability of the Arabic web-based knowledge about dental extraction. Methods: The first 100 Arabic websites focusing on dental extraction were gathered using popular terms from Google, Bing, and Yahoo searches. These sites were organized and their quality was assessed using three key standards: the Results: Out of 300 initially reviewed websites on dental extraction in Arabic, 80 met the eligibility criteria. Nonprofit organizations were most common (41.3%), followed by university/medical centers (36.3%), and commercial entities (21.3%). Government organizations were minimally represented (1.3%). All websites were medically oriented, with 60% offering Q&A sections. Quality assessment showed moderate scores on the DISCERN instrument, with no site reaching the highest score. Conclusions: The rapidly evolving online information about dental extraction lacks readability and quality and can spread misinformation. Creators should focus on clear, unbiased content using simple language for better public understanding.
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.