Question · asked by 1 review
Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening: Trauma to permanent incisor teeth
- Population
- School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India
- Intervention
- Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist)
- Comparison
- No screening
- Outcome
- Trauma to permanent incisor teeth
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening Trauma to permanent incisor teeth · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India School dental screening programmes for oral health (2022) · Cochrane All outcomes | Milsom 2006 reported the prevalence of trauma to the permanent incisor teeth as a dichotomous outcome (reduction from baseline yes/no); we were unable to include this data in a meta-analysis. | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| School dental screening programmes for oral health 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-10 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.