ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2025
A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the quality of Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment using PRHISM: comparison by source credibility.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Quality and accuracy of clear aligner Arabic information on Instagram: A content-based analysis.Digital healthArticle
- Assessment of the content and quality of palliative care videos on Chinese social media: A cross-sectional analysis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
YouTube is among the most popular social media platforms globally. The aim of this scoping review was to collate and synthesise the evidence related to the quality of information (QOI) about orthodontic-related videos uploaded to YouTube. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines were employed by two independent researchers to search and screen the literature over four electronic databases. The study topics were assigned into one of five general categories: 'Appliances', 'Orthodontic conditions', 'Orthodontics', 'Quality of life' and 'Treatment techniques and auxiliaries'. The searches initially returned 82 unique records. A total of 35 cross-sectional studies, evaluating 3129 videos with more than 181,563,304 views, were identified for systematic appraisal after the application of selection criteria. The findings indicated that YouTube plays a prominent role in the provision and sharing of orthodontic-related information. Although the information provided by orthodontic treatment providers was of slightly higher quality, the overall quality of all orthodontic information was generally poor. The studies covered a wide range of orthodontic-related subjects, with those related to appliances, especially clear aligners, being commonplace. Evaluation of the QOI frequently involved the use of the modified DISCERN, video information quality index (VIQI) and global quality score (GQS) tools. Content analysis was employed in most studies, but there was considerable heterogeneity in the use and reporting of this approach. Improvement of the quality of videos, either with or without the involvement of professional bodies, was frequently recommended by the studies.
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.