ArticleDigital health
Assessment of quality and readability of web-based knowledge about gummy smile: An infodemiology study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and readability of online patient-centered information related to the management of gummy smile. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using Google, Yahoo, and Bing to identify websites providing patient-oriented information on gummy smile treatments. A total of 257 websites met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Content quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Results: The overall quality of online information was low to moderate, with a mean DISCERN score of 40 ± 9.9. Only 11 websites were certified by the HON code, indicating limited adherence to established standards for trustworthy health information. According to JAMA benchmarks, only two websites fulfilled all four criteria. Readability analysis demonstrated that the content was relatively complex, with a mean FRES of 60.1 ± 9.2 and a mean FKGL of 8.9 ± 1.8, exceeding the recommended reading level for the general public. Conclusions: Online patient-centered information regarding gummy smile is generally of suboptimal quality and readability. The limited number of reliable and easily understandable resources underscores the need for improved quality control, standardization, and patient-focused content development. Enhancing the accessibility and reliability of online information may support better patient understanding and informed decision-making in dental aesthetics.
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.