Question · asked by 1 review
rs1126478, additive (per-allele) model vs A allele: Dental caries
- Population
- Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
- Intervention
- rs1126478, additive (per-allele) model
- Comparison
- A allele
- Outcome
- Dental caries
The additive-model association remained non-significant after excluding the adult-data study (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
rs1126478, additive (per-allele) model vs Reference allele A Dental caries · Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls · Brazil; European countries; China, Sensitivity analysis excluding the study using adult data (Fine 2013) The additive-model association remained non-significant after excluding the adult-data study (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35; ungraded). The association between genetic variants in lactotransferrin and dental caries: a meta- and gene-based… (2020) All outcomes | OR 1.47 [0.92, 2.35] | 3 studies · 1752 participants | GRADE not reported |
rs1126478, additive (per-allele) model vs Reference allele A Dental caries · Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls · Brazil; United States; European countries; China rs1126478 showed no significant association with dental caries under an additive genetic model (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.02; ungraded). The association between genetic variants in lactotransferrin and dental caries: a meta- and gene-based… (2020) All outcomes | OR 1.41 [0.98, 2.02] | 4 studies · 1802 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The association between genetic variants in lactotransferrin and dental caries: a meta- and gene-based analysis. 2020 All outcomes | December 5, 2019 (papers published before this date) | 6 | Not applicable |
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.