ArticleCureus2025
Quality and Readability of Arabic Online Resources on Early Orthodontic Intervention in Children: An Infodemiologic Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Early orthodontic intervention during the primary or mixed dentition phase can effectively address malocclusion, mitigate detrimental oral habits, and enhance long-term oral and psychosocial outcomes. Although the American Association of Orthodontists recommends initiating orthodontic assessments for children at age seven, most caregivers consult the internet for information. The quality, reliability, and readability of Arabic-language internet sources regarding early orthodontic treatment remain deficient. This study aimed to assess Arabic websites on early orthodontic treatment in children using validated quality and readability instruments. Methods In October 2024, a Google search (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) was conducted using four Arabic search terms equivalent to "early orthodontic treatment in children." The eligible websites were classified into different categories based on specialization, organizational affiliation, material type, and presentation style. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the Health on the Net (HON) Code. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) indices. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The initial 200 search results were screened, resulting in 63 eligible sites. The DISCERN assessment indicated that Arabic-language websites concerning early orthodontic treatment exhibited moderate overall quality. The findings from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark analysis reinforce these conclusions, with only six (9.5%) websites meeting all four items. None of the included websites was HONcode-certified. University-affiliated websites achieved significantly higher DISCERN and JAMA benchmark scores than commercial or nonprofit websites (p ≤ 0.05). All websites demonstrated high readability (mean FRES > 80), with university-affiliated content written at the most accessible level (p = 0.001). Conclusions Arabic websites on early orthodontic treatment generally display high readability and moderate informational quality. Nonetheless, major gaps remain in authorship transparency, source citations, and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Increasing government participation and standardizing transparency practices are essential to ensure reliable, evidence-based Arabic orthodontic content for caregivers and patients.
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.