ArticleBMJ open2025
Evaluating online information on temporomandibular disorders: readability, reliability, content and quality: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTemporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are a prevalent group of musculoskeletal conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint, associated structures and masticatory muscles. The internet has become a primary source of health information for many patients; however, the readability, reliability, content and quality of online information on TMDs vary widely. A comprehensive synthesis of the characteristics and evaluation methods of such content is currently lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Peer-reviewed primary and secondary studies assessing online information on TMDs will be included if they report on readability, reliability, content or quality. Eligible information sources include publicly available websites, videos and social media; discussion forums and printed materials will be excluded. No language, date or geographical restrictions will be applied. A three-step search strategy will be implemented across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, followed by citation tracking. Screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers using Rayyan. Data will be extracted with a pilot-tested charting tool and synthesised narratively and descriptively in tabular and graphical formats. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study will only use data from publicly available sources, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and professional networks, with the aim of guiding the development of accessible and reliable digital resources for individuals seeking information on TMDs. REGISTRATION: This protocol has been prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TAH7K.
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.