Female sex vs Male sex: Oral health-related quality of life
The abstract reports female sex is associated with worse OHRQoL, but the conclusion states the impact of gender was not clarified (narrative synthesis; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Female sex vs Male sex Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) · Adolescents (10-19 years) · Community/school/clinic settings; adolescents 10-19 years; included reviews conducted in multiple countries The abstract reports female sex is associated with worse OHRQoL, but the conclusion states the impact of gender was not clarified (narrative synthesis; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating). Oral-health-related quality of life in adolescents: umbrella review. (2023) All outcomes | Worse oral health status, older age, female sex and worse socioeconomic status were significantly associated with worse OHRQoL. [Conclusion: gender and skin color did not have their level of impact clarified.] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Female sex vs Male sex Oral health-related quality of life · Adolescents aged 10-19 years The umbrella review concluded that female sex is significantly associated with worse oral health-related quality of life. Oral-health-related quality of life in adolescents: umbrella review. (2023) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral-health-related quality of life in adolescents: umbrella review. 2023 All outcomes | January 2022 | 22 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.