Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research
  • Published:

Quality of available internet information regarding IV sedation for dental treatment

British Dental Journal volume 228, pages 279–282 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Aim Evaluate the content and quality of internet information for patients regarding intravenous sedation in dentistry.

Methodology Google was queried with predefined search terms that might be chosen by patients wishing to seek information: 'dental IV sedation OR dental intravenous sedation OR dental sedation'. The first hundred search results were identified. Invalid hyperlinks and duplicates were excluded. Providers, format and location of information were extracted. For webpages detailing treatment options, the DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmark were used to determine the quality of the information provided.

Results Of the first hundred search results, 89 webpages met the initial inclusion criteria. A majority (79%) originated from dental providers. Information was commonly presented as patient information leaflets. Of the 78 webpages detailing treatment options, 3% of webpages received a maximum DISCERN score of 5 and 64% a score of 1. No webpages fulfilled all JAMA criteria and 89% met only one criterion. Secondary care providers scored higher in both scales; however, this represents only 5% of the information available.

Conclusion The internet is a commonly accessed information resource for patients. The quality of internet information available regarding intravenous sedation in dentistry is suboptimal. There is a need for more high-quality information resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Licheri L, Erriu M, Bryant C, Piras V. A clinical audit of escorts' awareness and patients' safety following intravenous sedation in adult oral surgery. SAAD Dig 2016; 32: 17-22.

  2. Royal College of Surgeons. Standards for conscious sedation in the provision of dental care: report of the intercollegiate advisory committee for sedation in dentistry. 2015. Available online at https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/dental-faculties/fds/publications-guidelines/standards-for-conscious-sedation-in-the-provision-of-dental-care-and-accreditation/ (accessed January 2020).

  3. Davis L A, Cannon G W, Pointer L F et al. Cardiovascular events are not associated with MTHFR polymorphisms, but are associated with methotrexate use and traditional risk factors in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2013; 40: 809-817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. D'Cruz L, Kaney H. Consent - a new era begins. Br Dent J 2015; 219: 57-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan S W, Tulloch E, Cooper E S, Smith A, Wojcik W, Norman J E. Montgomery and informed consent: where are we now? BMJ 2017; 357: j2224.

  6. Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ. 1999; 318(7: 179): 318-322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dorr Goold S, Lipkin M Jr. The doctor-patient relationship: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. J Gen Intern Med 1999; DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00267.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63: 24-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. 2000. Available online at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2000/11/26/the-online-health-care-revolution/ (accessed January 2020).

  10. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E R. Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web: A Systematic Review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2691-2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kenny T, Wilson R G, Purves I N et al. A PIL for every ill? Patient information leaflets (PILs): A review of past, present and future use. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 471-479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pines A. Patient information leaflets: friend or foe? Climacteric 2015; 18: 663-635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sustersic M, Gauchet A, Foote A, Bosson J L. How best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews. Health Expect 2017; 20: 531-542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clarke K, O'Loughlin P, Cashman J. Standardized Consent: The Effect of Information Sheets on Information Retention. J Patient Saf 2018; DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ravindra P, Barrett C. Compliance with pre-operative instructions for procedures with conscious sedation: a complete audit cycle. Br Dent J 2012; DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sechrest R C. The internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 2566-2571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Park M W, Jo J H, Park J W. Quality and Content of Internet-Based Information on Temporomandibular Disorders. J Orofac Pain 2012; 26: 296-306.

  18. Riordain R N, Hodgson T. Content and quality of website information on the treatment of oral ulcers. Br Dent J 2014; DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Silberg W M, Lundberg G D, Musacchio R A. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor - Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 277: 1244-1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 105-111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DCT, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Liverpool, L3 5PS, UK

    Claudia Heggie

  2. Clinical Lecturer and Specialist in Oral Surgery, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Liverpool, L3 5PS, UK

    Sarah L. McKernon

  3. Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant in Paediatric Dentistry, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Liverpool, L3 5PS, UK

    Laura Gartshore

Authors
  1. Claudia Heggie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah L. McKernon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Gartshore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Heggie.

Ethics declarations

No funding was received for the completion of this research project and no conflicts of interest were identified.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heggie, C., McKernon, S. & Gartshore, L. Quality of available internet information regarding IV sedation for dental treatment. Br Dent J 228, 279–282 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1258-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1258-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links