ArticleInternational journal of dental hygiene2026
Investigation of Misleading Techniques Used in Online Fluoride Misinformation.
Article in International journal of dental hygiene, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFluoride misinformation can fuel anti-fluoridation movements, influencing political decisions and dental treatment choices. This study aimed to elucidate the misleading techniques used to produce online fluoride misinformation. METHODOLOGY: Two independent investigators searched scientific databases for references that supported or refuted 33 fluoride misinformation messages, derived from a prior study that manually identified dental falsehoods on websites through thematic content analysis. The levels of evidence were assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (levels 1-5) and the GRADE guidelines (high to very low, indicating the degree of confidence that the direction of the net effect is correct). Misleading techniques were classified as false attribution, when no reference supported a message, or quote mining, when at least one supporting reference was identified but used out of context.
resultsNineteen references were identified to refute 27 fluoride misinformation, while seven references were identified to support six misinformation messages. False attribution was the predominant technique (81.82%), compared to quote mining (18.18%). The levels of evidence and strength of recommendations for refuting references ranged from 1A-1B (high, 31.6%) to 2C-5 (very low, 57.9%). Supporting references ranged from 2B (low, 14.3%) to 2C-5 (very low, 85.7%). The claim 'fluoride accumulates in the body' was the only one supported by low-level evidence.
conclusionsOnline fluoride misinformation is most often grounded in false attribution. Understanding the strategies that authors use to construct these false messages can support health educators in creating more targeted and effective prebunking and debunking interventions.
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.