Question · asked by 1 review

Molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) assessment vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year): MIH prevalence

Population
School-aged children in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai)
Intervention
Molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) assessment
Comparison
None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)
Outcome
MIH prevalence

MIH prevalence among school-aged children in Dubai ranged from 7.6% to 27.2% across two studies, higher in females and low-socioeconomic-class schools (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) assessment vs None (descriptive prevalence review)
MIH prevalence · School-aged children in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) · Dubai, UAE; governmental/public schools
MIH prevalence among school-aged children in Dubai ranged from 7.6% to 27.2% across two studies, higher in females and low-socioeconomic-class schools (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. (2021) All outcomes
Two Dubai studies assessed MIH: Ahmad et al. reported a low prevalence of 7.59% (higher in low-socioeconomic-class schools, 11.31% vs 4.58% in high-class) and Hussain et al. reported 27.2% (higher in females, 32.6% vs…2 studiesGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade.
2021 All outcomes
May 4, 202142Not 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.