ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Are YouTube™ and TikTok™ videos useful as educational tool for patients with cleft lip and palate?
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. 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.
- Quality and content evaluation of male HPV infection on Bilibili and TikTok: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality of information about potentially malignant oral disorders on TikTok: a cross-sectional analysis in the context of social media.BMC oral health · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the quality of YouTube™ and TikTok™ videos as educational tools for patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) as regards their care, and multidisciplinary treatment.
methodsVideos were searched on YouTube™ and TikTok™ using four keywords. The reliability and quality of the first 60 videos for each keyword and platform were analyzed. The following variables were analyzed: the source, distribution, and purpose of the videos, the general and audiovisual quality of the videos, and their main subject. The study's covariates were cleft classification, dental treatment, pre-surgical orthopedic treatments, surgical and medical treatments.
resultsOf the 480 videos selected, 303 videos were evaluated (177 excluded due to the exclusion criteria). TikTok™ emerged as the most frequently accessed platform, recording a greater number of views and likes. YouTube™ stood out for its availability of longer and more comprehensive videos, in terms of content. On YouTube™ the majority of videos were produced by academic/health and medical organizations, predominantly aimed at educational purposes; whereas on TikTok™ prevailed the production of individual and personal content geared toward informational purposes. On both platforms, the videos proved to be of low quality. YouTube™ videos from individual sources and organizations were associated with medium and low quality, respectively. Additionally, YouTube™ videos of shorter duration were of lower quality. TikTok™ videos had lower overall quality, especially those produced individually, regardless of associations.
conclusionsYouTube™ and TikTok™ exhibited predominantly low-quality videos, suggesting they are not suitable as educational tools to guide patients with CLP for their multidisciplinary treatment.
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.