ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the reliability and educational value of YouTube videos on computer-controlled local anesthesia in dentistry.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- Evaluation of Popularity, Reliability, and Quality of Dental and Oral Microbiology Videos on YouTube as Sources of Dental Education.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and dissemination of lung cancer information on short-video platforms in China: a cross-platform content analysis of TikTok, Kwai, and Rednote.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the scientific accuracy, content quality, and educational value of YouTube™ videos related to computer-controlled local anesthesia (CCLA) techniques in dentistry. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 100 videos were screened using predefined keywords, and 48 met the inclusion criteria. Videos were assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), DISCERN tool, JAMA benchmark criteria, and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). Scientific content was scored using a structured rubric across six domains. Interobserver reliability was evaluated using Weighted Kappa and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Confidence intervals were calculated for key metrics. Group comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and correlations were analyzed using Spearman's rho (p < 0.05).
resultsVideos from academic sources had significantly higher scores across all quality and reliability indicators. The mean GQS was 2.6 (95% CI: 2.3-2.9), DISCERN 11.7 (95% CI: 10.8-12.6), JAMA 1.8 (95% CI: 1.7-1.9), and VIQI 12.5 (95% CI: 11.7-13.3). Strong positive correlations were found between DISCERN and VIQI (r = 0.809), and between total content score and both DISCERN (r = 0.803) and VIQI (r = 0.655).
conclusionAlthough YouTube™ provides accessible information on CCLA, many videos lack scientific rigor and educational depth. Content produced by academic institutions is significantly more reliable. Dental educators are encouraged to integrate high-quality video content into curricula to improve media literacy and student learning outcomes.
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.