ReviewBDJ open2026
Online oral health misinformation and information quality: a scoping review.
Review in BDJ open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimOnline oral-health misinformation and low-quality information are increasingly studied, but the dental evidence base remains fragmented across platforms, topics and measurement approaches. This scoping review mapped how online oral-health misinformation and information quality have been defined, measured and reported, and identified the extent to which patient-level outcomes have been directly examined.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Searches of Scopus, Web of Science and Ovid Medline identified 864 records. After screening, 61 studies were included following exclusion of two non-English articles and three studies where AI chatbots were the primary object of analysis. Data were charted by platform, misinformation or information-quality construct, study design, uploader type, engagement measure, quality assessment method and evidence directness. A formal risk-of-bias assessment was not undertaken, consistent with the scoping review design.
resultsResearch increased markedly from 2022 onwards, with YouTube the most frequently studied platform, followed by Instagram, websites and Facebook. Most studies were descriptive content audits that assessed information quality, reliability, readability, uploader type or engagement. Professional or institutional content often scored higher for quality, while lower-quality, commercial or lay content sometimes attracted greater platform engagement within individual studies. However, engagement measures indicated visibility or interaction only, and did not establish patient-level impact. Fluoride, root canal treatment, aesthetic dentistry, implants, orthodontics and do-it-yourself remedies were recurring topics.
conclusionsResearch on online oral-health misinformation and information quality is expanding, but remains dominated by descriptive audits of public online platforms. Direct evidence linking online exposure to patient trust, treatment decisions, care avoidance or clinical outcomes remains limited. Future studies should use clearer definitions, distinguish misinformation from information quality, and measure patient-level and intervention outcomes more directly.
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.