↓ Skip to main content

A quality assessment of orthodontic patient information leaflets

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
A quality assessment of orthodontic patient information leaflets
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40510-016-0128-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jadbinder Seehra, Laura Cockerham, Nikolaos Pandis

Abstract

Patient information leaflets (PILs) are often used to reinforce and provide further information relating to treatment choices, risks, and alternatives. An assessment of the quality of commonly used orthodontic patient information leaflets is lacking. A cross-sectional assessment of patient information leaflets from two international orthodontic societies was undertaken. The quality of each leaflet was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. The readability of each leaflet was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease instrument, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate analysis was conducted. Thirty-six patient information leaflets were identified. Reporting of DISCERN instrument items relating to aims, description of sources, details of additional sources, consequences of no treatment, possible treatment options, and support for a shared decision process was of low quality. The overall quality score for the total sample was 44. The median Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and SMOG index scores were 70 (interquartile range (IQR) 53.3-73.9), 7.2 (IQR 6-9.7), and 7.3 (IQR 6.7-9.1), respectively. There was a significant difference between the quality (-8.00, 95 % CI: -14.62, -1.38, p < 0.001), Flesch Reading Ease (-22.30, 95 % CI: -26.77, 17.83, p < 0.001) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (3.80, 95 % CI: 2.74, 4.86, p < 0.001) scores between the two societies' PILs. In relation to the DISCERN instrument, the quality of orthodontic PILs is deemed of moderate quality. There is a significant difference between the quality scores and the readability of PILs from different societies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Lecturer 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Linguistics 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,536,995
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#70
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,978
of 339,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.