ArticleBMC oral health2025
Quality, reliability and viewer perceptions of YouTube videos on oral health during pregnancy: a mixed-methods analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Evaluating pulpitis-related content on Chinese social media: platform comparison, dental practitioner impact and associated factors.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and educational quality of YouTube™ and TikTok™ videos on custom subperiosteal implants: a cross-sectional methodological analysis.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the content, reliability and user engagement of YouTube videos on oral and dental health during pregnancy using a mixed-methods approach. The study focused solely on videos in the Turkish language.
methodsA YouTube search was conducted using predefined keywords. After applying inclusion criteria, 189 videos were analyzed. Content evaluation was based on guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), American Dental Association (ADA), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Video quality and reliability were assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and modified DISCERN criteria. User engagement metrics and thematic analysis of comments were analyzed using MAXQDA 24.
resultsOf the analyzed videos, 69.3% were uploaded by health-related sources, while 30.7% were from independent users. Videos from individual healthcare professionals had significantly higher engagement metrics compared to those from healthcare institutions (p < 0.001). Quality analysis showed that 15.3% of videos were high quality, while 56.1% were classified as low quality. The mean Information Reliability Score was 2.32 ± 1.04. Comment analysis showed that 44.4% of commenters were pregnant women, and the most frequently mentioned theme in qualitative analysis was "fear of harm to the baby" (39% of comments).
conclusionsThe findings indicate that most YouTube videos on oral and dental health during pregnancy are of low quality and limited reliability. Increased involvement of healthcare professionals in producing evidence-based video content may enhance the quality of information available to pregnant women.
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.