ArticleDigital health
A qualitative analysis of Arabic language websites about extraction of third molars.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of Arabic-language web-based online information regarding surgical third molar extraction. Methods: In this observational web-based analytical study, the top 150 Arabic search results for surgical wisdom tooth extraction were collected from Google, Yahoo, and Bing. The quality of the websites was evaluated using the DISCERN tool and the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) guidelines for online content analysis. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Reading Ease (FRE) scale, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scale, and the Simplified- Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Results: A total of 450 websites related to the extraction of wisdom teeth were initially identified. 146 websites were included in the final analysis after exclusion according to specific exclusion criteria. Significant difference was observed in the domain of treatment alternatives and the quality of information provided, according to the DISCERN criteria. The median scores for reliability-related questions ranged from 1.5 to 4.5. The overall quality rating had a median score of 2.5 (IQR = 0.5). There were significant differences in the number of achieved JAMA items per webpage between the groups (P-value = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in the DISCERN quality evaluations between the affiliations (P-value = 0.450). Conclusion: the study results indicating a broad spectrum in the explicitness and relevance of information with moderate quality across the evaluated websites and the investigation revealed significant variations in the content quality and readability provided by websites belonging to various affiliations, with non-profit websites generally achieving higher scores in JAMA criteria and readability measures.
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.