ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Oral Health Misinformation on Youtube - A Content Analysis.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Content Gaps and Informational Quality of TikTok and Bilibili Videos on Pit and Fissure Sealing in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Videos on Bilibili, TikTok, and Xiaohongshu as Sources of Medical Information on Adenoid Hypertrophy: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Quality and guideline adherence of child-oriented toothbrushing videos on YouTube: a comparative study of Turkish and English content.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With the rise of social media and widespread smartphone use, information is now readily accessible worldwide. However, the credibility of this information often remains unchecked. Few studies have evaluated oral health content on online platforms. However, YouTube, despite its popularity, is frequently overlooked. This study aims to identify and analyze oral health misinformation on YouTube. Methods: A search was done on YouTube using common keywords related to oral health through Google chrome browser with incognito mode to limit the bias associated with Google accounts. The videos obtained were subjected to analysis using a coding framework and both auditory and visual content were examined together by two coders to ensure a comprehensive coding process. All the videos were classified either as accurate information (useful) or misleading information. Results: A total of 72 videos were included in the study, of which about 55% of them had misleading content. About 75% of the videos containing misleading information were created by non-professionals and only about 15% of the videos containing misleading information were created by medical professionals. It was surprising to note that the misleading information had more positive engagement metric (137429) than the useful information (71207). Conclusion: From the content analysis, it was found that there was a large amount of misleading information on oral health in YouTube. Therefore, it's crucial to address the potential risks of misleading content and to increase public awareness about the impact of following such misleading information.
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.