Background: Patientsoften have misconceptions about the appropriateness of an Apiceptomy, partly due to poor quality information on the Internet. Clinical consequences include a patient's false expectations of preserving a tooth that is of a poor prognosis or conversely the loss of a tooth that had the potential to be saved. Aim: To assess the quality of information available for patients on Apicectomy. Materials and methods: We conducted a quality assessment of online information relating to Apicectomies using the DISCERN instrument. Results: Fifteen websites met the inclusion criteria, of which one had 'good' quality, seven were of 'fair' quality, and seven had 'poor' quality. Furthermore, no websites were of 'excellent' or 'very poor' quality. Conclusions: Our results are in line with the literature demonstrating poor quality online health information. Furthermore, we find that websites authored by dentists do not have a superior quality to those with unspecified authors. We propose that practitioners can adopt a proactive role. For example, Wikipedia was the first search result, yet was of 'poor quality'. Due to Wikipedia being a user-generated website, practitioners can revise its content to enhance the quality of information. Such action may lead to better-informed patients, more dynamic doctor-patient relationship, and reduction in the gap between the expectations of patients and realities of Apicectomy outcomes. Clinical relevance Scientific rationale for studyApicectomy is a procedure that most patients have not had previous experience of, neither personal nor second hand. Patients are susceptible to misleading information when using the Internet to gain information. The quality of this information is therefore important to be scrutinised. Principal findingsA total of 15 websites met the inclusion criteria, of which none were of excellent quality and seven were of poor quality. Practical implicationsIt is of utmost important to ascertain patients' understanding of Apicectomy and understand why misconceptions may arise. These must be dispelled in order to allow informed patient consent and realistic expectations.Oral Surgery 10 (2017) e35--e39.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.