Patient-centered web-based information on oral lichen planus: Quality and readability

Quality and readability of web-based information on dental caries in Arabic: an infodemiological study

BACKGROUND

Web-based information on dental caries in Arabic remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of web-based information about dental caries in Arabic.

METHODS

The first 100 websites in Arabic about dental caries were retrieved from Google and Bing using common terms. The websites were classified and evaluated for quality based on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the DISCERN tool, and the presence of the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode). Readability was assessed using online readability indexes.

RESULTS

A total of 102 Arabic websites were included. The JAMA benchmark score was low (m = 0.36, SD = 0.56), with 67.7% failing to meet any of the JAMA criteria. The DISCERN total score mean was 37.68 (SD = 7.99), with a majority (67.65%) of moderate quality. None of the websites had the HONcode. Readability was generally good, with 52.94% of websites having a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) < 7, 91.18% having a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) < 7, and 85.29% having a Flesch reading ease (FRE) score ≥ 80. There was a positive correlation between JAMA and DISCERN scores (p < 0.001). DISCERN scores were positively correlated with the number of words (p < 0.001) and sentences (p = 0.004) on the websites. However, JAMA or DISCERN scores were not correlated with FKGL, SMOG, or FRE scores (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of Arabic dental caries websites was found to be low, despite their readability. Efforts are needed to introduce more reliable sources for discussing dental caries and treatment options on sites aimed at Arabic populations.

Evaluation of the information provided by UK dental practice websites regarding complications of dental implants

Introduction Dental implants are a popular option for replacing missing teeth. When searching for information regarding dental implants, patients may first look to their dental practice website. The aim of this study was to assess the variance of patient information provided regarding implant complications on dental implant practice websites.Materials and methods Inclusion criteria for this study were dental practices within the Greater Glasgow & Clyde health board and practices with an active website. Completeness was assessed using a six-point score based on the British Association of Oral Surgeons 'Information for patients' leaflet and Association of Dental Implantology 'Considering dental implants? - A patient's guide to dental implant treatment' leaflet.Results In total, 90.7% (n = 107) of practices provided accessible implant information on their websites. However, only 37.3% (n = 44) mentioned one or more specified dental implant complications. Pain/discomfort was the most frequently stated complication (n = 41/118); implant failure was only mentioned by 19 practices (16%). The mean number of complications mentioned by the 118 practices offering dental implants was 1.1.Discussion As implant dentistry grows, there may be concerns over patient expectations. To overcome lack of quality assurance on the internet, dentists can provide factual information on their websites. They should be aware of their duty to provide material that is accurate, honest, informative and not potentially misleading.