ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Ameloblastoma on YouTube: content analysis and strategies to address misinformation.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Spread of Non-Evidence-Based Health Claims on Social Media: The Case of #Mouthtape on Instagram, a Cross-Sectional Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 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
Abstract
purposeInternet platforms, such as YouTube, play a significant role in disseminating health information. This study assessed the quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to ameloblastoma.
methodsThis cross-sectional study examined videos using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) to assess content quality and the DISCERN tool to determine reliability. The creators' profiles and target audiences were also evaluated. Data were analyzed descriptively and analytically.
resultsA total of 65 videos were analyzed. Most videos (84.6%) were educational, while 15.4% were case reports. Specialists produced 40% of the videos, general dentists 21.5%, and students 6.2%. Regarding content quality, 23.2% of the videos received the highest GQS score, while 27.6% were rated as low quality (scores 1-2). According to DISCERN, 1.5% of videos were classified as maximum quality, 21.6% as high quality, and 17% as low quality. A significant difference in GQS scores was observed between oral and maxillofacial surgeons and general dentists (p = 0.025). A strong positive correlation was found between GQS and DISCERN scores (r = 0.79).
conclusionWhile most videos exhibited good production quality, their overall reliability was moderate, with notable deficiencies. Additional validation strategies are needed to enhance the accuracy and educational value of online health information. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40261467What 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.