Dear Editor,

We read with great interest the article by Théry and Bedez titled French dentists' communication quality on clinical oral dermatology cases in Facebook groups: a cross-sectional study [1]. The study addresses a timely and important issue: the use of social media platforms, particularly Facebook, for sharing clinical cases among dentists and dental students. The authors' insights into the variability of communication quality and the potential for professional learning in specialized groups are commendable. However, we would like to offer some constructive comments and suggestions to extend the discussion and explore additional implications of this work.

The custom scoring grid developed by the authors provides a structured approach to evaluating communication quality. However, the criteria seem heavily focused on dermatological aspects, potentially overlooking other essential dimensions of case presentation, such as ethical considerations and patient consent. While the authors briefly mention that posts were original, it would be beneficial to discuss whether explicit patient consent was obtained for sharing cases on social media—an ethical cornerstone when dealing with identifiable clinical images [2]. Including this aspect in future studies could promote awareness and accountability among practitioners.

Another noteworthy point is the exclusion of histological and radiographic data in the scoring grid. While the rationale for excluding these criteria is clear, their absence might inadvertently underestimate the diagnostic thoroughness of certain cases. For example, histological confirmation could elevate the educational value of shared cases, even if such data are typically absent in initial discussions. Exploring ways to encourage the inclusion of advanced diagnostic tools in social media posts could enrich the learning experience without overwhelming participants [3].

The distinction between the All-Dentistry and Oral Dermatology groups raises an intriguing question about the dynamics of group specialization and its influence on communication quality. The findings suggest that smaller, focused groups foster better case presentations. This aligns with existing literature on learning communities, which highlights the benefits of shared expertise and narrower scopes. However, a potential drawback is the risk of “groupthink” or the limitation of diverse perspectives that might be more prevalent in broader, multidisciplinary groups [4]. Future studies could explore whether the interplay between general and specialized groups—as evidenced by the seven duplicate cases—serves as a mechanism to mitigate these limitations.

Another critical consideration is the accessibility of these groups. The authors report significant variability in entrance requirements, with some groups lacking stringent verification processes. This raises concerns about the credibility of participants and the accuracy of shared information [5]. Establishing universal guidelines for group participation, combined with moderator oversight, could help standardize the quality of discussions while maintaining inclusivity.

Lastly, the article touches upon the role of social media as a learning tool but does not delve into its broader implications for professional development. Social media platforms offer an opportunity for lifelong learning, particularly in geographically isolated regions where access to specialized training may be limited. However, without standardized practices, these platforms risk becoming a double-edged sword, disseminating both best practices and misinformation [3,5]. Introducing certification or recognition for high-quality contributions within these groups might incentivize better communication and adherence to guidelines.

In conclusion, Théry and Bedez have provided an excellent foundation for understanding the potential and pitfalls of social media in professional education. Expanding the scope of future research to include ethical, procedural, and broader professional development aspects could amplify the impact of this work. I hope these comments stimulate further discussion among the journal's readers.

Funding

No funding was received for this article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Author contribution statement

The author contributed to the conception, design of study, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript.

Ethics approval

Not required.

References

© The authors, 2025