ArticlePEC innovation2026
Evaluating fluoride-related YouTube videos in Japan: A comparative analysis of understandability, actionability, and reliability between pro- and anti-fluoride content.
Article in PEC innovation, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare pro- and anti-fluoride Japanese YouTube videos on understandability, actionability, flow, reliability, and engagement. Methods: Eighty-four videos found via a keyword search (pro = 49, anti = 18, other = 17) were analyzed. Quality was assessed using three validated tools-namely, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V), Global Quality Score (GQS), and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN). Engagement was measured as view rate. Results: Pro-fluoride videos scored higher on reliability (mDISCERN 2.6 ± 1.0 vs 1.3 ± 0.6) and overall quality (GQS 2.5 ± 1.4 vs 1.0 ± 0.9; both Conclusion: Reliable, expert-made pro-fluoride videos attract modest audiences, whereas anti-fluoride videos can achieve a wide reach when they are easy to follow and well-structured. However, scientific accuracy alone cannot guarantee audience reach or engagement. Oral health authorities should design algorithm-sensitive, evidence-based videos that are clear and actionable. Innovation: This is the first study to integrate the PEMAT-A/V, GQS, and mDISCERN with YouTube analytics for Japanese fluoride content, thereby providing a data-driven framework for algorithm-aware oral-health messaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.