ArticleBMC oral health2026
Information completeness, sentiment, and engagement of orthodontic patient experience content on Chinese social media: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundSocial media has become an important source of orthodontic information, yet patient experience content varies in completeness and may shape treatment expectations. This study evaluated information completeness, comment sentiment, and engagement patterns in orthodontic experience content on three major Chinese social media platforms.
methodsA cross-sectional sample of 180 eligible posts was collected from Bilibili, Douyin, and Xiaohongshu using two search terms, "orthodontic experience" and "braces diary." Information completeness was assessed using a modified 6-point Information Completeness Score (ICS). Comment sentiment and title sentiment were quantified using sentiment analysis scores (SAS). Engagement metrics, including likes, favorites, shares, and comments, were recorded. Platform differences and subgroup differences by appliance type, treatment population, video duration, and video age were analyzed.
resultsInter-rater reliability for total ICS was excellent (ICC (3,1) = 0.954). The automated SAS classifications showed strong agreement with the human consensus gold standard, with an overall accuracy of 91.6% (κ = 0.848). ICS differed significantly across platforms (H = 40.70, p < 0.001), with Bilibili showing the highest score (3.53 ± 1.46) and Xiaohongshu the lowest (1.78 ± 1.24). Treatment details and treatment duration were the most frequently mentioned dimensions, whereas clinician or institution credentials and cost were least frequently covered. Title sentiment showed a statistically significant but weak positive correlation with comment sentiment in the full sample (rho = 0.247, p < 0.001), with platform-specific variation. Engagement indicators were strongly intercorrelated (rho = 0.69-0.87), but ICS showed no meaningful correlation with engagement. Longer videos, clear aligner content, adult orthodontic content, and older videos had higher ICS, whereas SAS varied only slightly across groups.
conclusionsOrthodontic patient experience content on Chinese social media shows substantial variation in information completeness. High engagement does not necessarily indicate high information quality. Professional orthodontic content should provide balanced information on treatment benefits, risks, costs, duration, and professional sources to support informed patient decision-making.
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.