Question · asked by 1 review
Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment: Adverse events
- Population
- Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
- Intervention
- Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib)
- Comparison
- no treatment
- Outcome
- Adverse events
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Orthodontic appliances (palatal arch/palatal crib) vs No treatment Adverse events · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier) Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | SoF (orthodontic appliances vs no treatment): Adverse events - insufficient information reported. Table 3 (adverse outcomes after one month; Haryett 1967), orthodontic treatment group: reported upset 6/22 (27%); speech… | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2014-10 | 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.