Question · asked by 1 review

Growth stunting (linear growth retardation, low height-for-age) vs Children without growth stunting (normal height-for-age): Early childhood caries (ECC)

Population
Children aged ≤6 years (early childhood)
Intervention
Growth stunting (linear growth retardation, low height-for-age)
Comparison
Children without growth stunting (normal height-for-age)
Outcome
Early childhood caries (ECC)

One Nigerian cross-sectional study reported a significant adjusted association between nutritional (stunting) status and ECC (APR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.69); ungraded.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Growth stunting (linear growth retardation, low height-for-age) vs Children without growth stunting (normal height-for-age)
Early childhood caries (def-t/dmft caries experience) · Children in early childhood (0-6 years) · Nigeria (Ile-Ife, sub-urban), Folayan et al. 2019 (Nigeria; adjusted, model 3)
One Nigerian cross-sectional study reported a significant adjusted association between nutritional (stunting) status and ECC (APR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.69); ungraded.
The bi-directional relationship between growth stunting and early childhood caries: a rapid review. (2023) All outcomes
APR 0.14 [0.03, 0.69]1 study · 370 participantsGRADE not reported
Growth stunting (linear growth retardation, low height-for-age) vs Children without growth stunting (normal height-for-age)
Early childhood caries (def-t/dmft caries experience) · Children in early childhood (0-6 years) · Brazil, Vieira et al. 2020 (Brazil)
One Brazilian cross-sectional study found no significant association between chronic malnutrition (stunting) and caries (r=-0.091, p>0.05); ungraded.
The bi-directional relationship between growth stunting and early childhood caries: a rapid review. (2023) All outcomes
Correlation (r) -0.0911 study · 82 participantsGRADE not reported
Growth stunting (linear growth retardation, low height-for-age) vs Children without growth stunting (normal height-for-age)
Early childhood caries (def-t/dmft caries experience) · Children in early childhood (0-6 years) · 2-year follow-up, Ecuador (rural), Sokal-Gutierrez et al. 2016 (Ecuador; pre vs post intervention)
A quasi-experimental Ecuadorian prevention program reduced both ECC (e.g., prevalence 53.8% to 30.3% at age 1) and malnutrition over 2 years; ungraded, no association effect estimate reported.
The bi-directional relationship between growth stunting and early childhood caries: a rapid review. (2023) All outcomes
Pre/post ECC prevalence, dmft, and deep-caries proportion (2-year follow-up) Age 1: prevalence 53.8% to 30.3%, dmft 2.1 to 0.9; Age 2: prevalence 82% to 60%, dmft 5.3 to 3.0, deep caries 19% to 12% (pre vs post)1 study · 1575 participantsGRADE not reported
Growth stunting (linear growth retardation, low height-for-age) vs Children without growth stunting (normal height-for-age)
Early childhood caries (def-t/dmft caries experience) · Children in early childhood (0-6 years) · Indonesia (Makassar, Tamalanrea); community health center, Achmad et al. 2020 (Indonesia)
In one Indonesian cross-sectional study, stunted children had a higher mean def-t caries index than normal-height children (p=0.001); ungraded.
The bi-directional relationship between growth stunting and early childhood caries: a rapid review. (2023) All outcomes
MEAN 7.371 study · 208 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
The bi-directional relationship between growth stunting and early childhood caries: a rapid review.
2023 All outcomes
Not specified (included studies published 2015-2020; inclusion window 2012-2020)9Not 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.