METHODS: Online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) were searched from date of inception till May 2020. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 1) observational studies that assessed the relationship between EBV and OLP, 2) the study comprised OLP patients and control subjects, 3) diagnosis of OLP was confirmed histopathologically, and 4) articles were in English. Studies without control groups, experimental studies, case reports, and reviews were excluded. The fixed-effects model was performed for meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three search engines (Google, Yahoo!, and Bing) were searched. The first 20 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained and checked for eligibility. For the quality of the websites, the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the DISCERN tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmarks, and Google PageRank were used for the assessment of the included websites. For readability, an online web tool was used, including well-known analyzing indices [Flesch Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)]. The acceptable readability level was set to be ≥80.0 for the FRE and <7 for the FKGL and SMOG. The data were presented in frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS: Out of the 60 screened websites, 14 websites were eligible for analysis. There was only one (7.1%) website that had the HONcode seal. The mean score of all websites based on the DISCERN tool was 29.6 ± 12.1, with no website achieved the high score (≥65). Only one (7.1%) website scored >5 based on Google PageRank. Regarding JAMA benchmarks, all websites achieved a mean score of 2.57 ± 1.1. The mean grade level based on the FKGL was 8.4 ± 6.3. All websites had a score of <7 according to the SMOG index. The mean score of the readability ease index was 90.5 ± 16.4.

CONCLUSION: Most of the dental health information on denture hygiene available on the Arabic websites did not have the required level of quality, regardless of being readable and comprehensible by most of the general people.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.

RESULTS: Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.