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.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Directing the patients to the appropriate websites related to their cases is the responsibility of the dentists.
METHODS: In this study that employed a comparative design, fifty-nine typically developing Malaysian children (24 boys, aged from 8 years, 0 months to 8 years, 11 months) were enrolled. They were chosen from three different classrooms (consisting of high achieving, medium achieving and low achieving students, respectively) in a primary school. Their ORF and SRF skills were assessed according to the established methods.
RESULTS: As revealed by two-way ANOVA results, both ORF and SRF scores were found to be comparable between boys and girls (p > 0.05). In contrast, ORF and SRF results between the three classrooms were significantly different from each other (p
METHODS: A cross-over, randomised study was carried out on 40 individuals (11 males and 29 females) aged 21 to 30 years. The rate of reading and reading accuracy was calculated with and without ChromaGen blue filter lens in all subjects. Wilkins Rate of Reading Test was used to measure the rate of reading and reading accuracy. Contrast sensitivity was also evaluated by using with and without the ChromaGen blue filter lens.
RESULTS: The mean rate of reading with and without ChromaGen blue filter lens was 160.58±16.03 words per minute and 150.52±15.66 words per minute respectively, with significant difference of p<0.001. The mean of reading accuracy (words correctly read per minute) in subjects, with ChromaGen blue filter was 149.30±0.79 words and without using filter lens was 148.53±1.11 words and found to be significant (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the contrast sensitivity between subjects with and without the ChromaGen blue filter lens (p=0.083). No significant correlation was noted between the reading speed with age, spherical equivalent, contrast sensitivity, and reading accuracy.
CONCLUSION: This study concludes that there was an increase of 6.68% in the rate of reading and improvement of 0.52% in accuracy among subjects with ChromaGen blue filter lens.