ArticleJournal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Quality assessment of YouTube™ videos on gingival recession and its management: A cross-sectional analysis of content reliability and educational value.
Article in Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 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
Background: Gingival recession affects approximately 81% of people worldwide and represents one of the most common oral health issues. Increasingly, more people are using digital platforms to find information about their health, with YouTube represented as a popular source for learning about oral health topics. However, studies have not been conducted on the quality or trustworthiness of gingival recession information that is available on YouTube. Objective: To systematically evaluate the content quality, usefulness, and reliability of YouTube™ videos concerning gingival recession and its management using validated assessment tools. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using four search terms: "gingival recession," "gum recession treatment," "receding gums," and "gum graft." Twenty videos that met the inclusion criteria were independently evaluated by two calibrated dental evaluators using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), audiovisual quality assessment, and a customized usefulness index. Videos were classified by source (expert vs. non-expert) and content level (high vs. low). Statistical analysis examined the relationships between quality metrics and video characteristics. Results: Expert-created videos comprised 85% of the sample, significantly higher than previously reported for other dental topics. The mean GQS score was 3.4 ± 0.9, indicating moderate-to-good overall quality. High-content videos accounted for 70% of the sample and expert videos demonstrated significantly superior quality across all metrics (GQS: 3.5 vs. 2.7, Conclusions: YouTube videos concerning gum recession had better quality in terms of content than did videos pertaining to other dental subjects. Videos found on YouTube were at a high level in terms of professional input and contained a moderate-to-high amount of educational information. There was little or no information provided in YouTube videos related to prevention as well as full patient instruction. Therefore, it appears that while YouTube can be a viable source for providing patients with educational materials, there are some subject matter areas that need greater emphasis by professionals.
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.