Question · asked by 1 review

Sugar consumption (higher sugar intake) vs No sugar consumption (lower/no intake): Early childhood caries (ECC)

Population
Preschool children (<6 years)
Intervention
Sugar consumption (higher sugar intake)
Comparison
No sugar consumption (lower/no intake)
Outcome
Early childhood caries (ECC)

Higher sugar consumption is associated with early childhood caries in children under 6 years: pooled OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.68) from 9 cohort studies with no heterogeneity (I2=0%); the body of evidence was not GRADE-rated (ungraded).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Sugar consumption (higher sugar intake) vs No sugar consumption (lower/no intake)
Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children under 6 years of age · Outcome (ECC) assessed from 9 months to 5 years of age, Population-based birth and childhood cohort studies; multiple countries (Europe, Brazil, Asia, Australia, USA); mostly high-income, six in developing countries (Brazil, Thailand), none in low-income countries, Overall (all 9 meta-analyzed studies pooled)
Higher sugar consumption is associated with early childhood caries in children under 6 years: pooled OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.68) from 9 cohort studies with no heterogeneity (I2=0%); the body of evidence was not GRADE-rated (ungraded).
Sugar consumption and early childhood caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. (2025) All outcomes
OR 1.59 [1.50, 1.68]9 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Sugar consumption and early childhood caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
2025 All outcomes
December 2020 to May 202517Not applicable

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

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.