ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
A Cross-Sectional Study of the Quality of Online Information on Periodontal Surgery.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the quality of online information provided by dental-related websites regarding periodontal surgery.
methodsThe term "Gum Surgery" was entered into three search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). The content of websites satisfying selection criteria was assessed with five validated quality of information tools (DISCERN, The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmarks, and HONCode and @TRUST certification). The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) was used to evaluate the readability of content.
resultsA total of 55 websites satisfied selection criteria. The mean (SD) DISCERN score for all website categories was 2.89 (0.57). The quality of information related to the risks of each treatment scored poorly in most websites. The healthcare portals obtained the highest mean PEMAT score of 71.74%, a statistically significant outcome. Healthcare portal websites also recorded the highest mean (SD) JAMA score of 3.72 (0.75) out of 4. The mean (SD) SMOG score was 9.56 (1.07). Cohen's κ inter-rater reliability for DISCERN and PEMAT scores were 0.75 and 0.79, respectively.
conclusionThe information available online about periodontal surgery was variable and difficult to read, falling short of established standards for accuracy, reliability, and credibility. Vital information was often omitted.
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.