Low socioeconomic position and adverse behavioural factors vs Higher socioeconomic position and fewer adverse behaviours: Systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein) and periodontal disease progression
In one 5-year longitudinal study, accumulation of low socioeconomic and behavioural factors was associated with greater periodontal disease progression and higher C-reactive protein; not pooled (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Low socioeconomic position and adverse behavioural factors vs Higher socioeconomic position and fewer adverse behaviours Systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein) and periodontal disease progression · General-population adults (German cohort) · 5-year follow-up, General adult population, Germany (Study of Health in Pomerania) In one 5-year longitudinal study, accumulation of low socioeconomic and behavioural factors was associated with greater periodontal disease progression and higher C-reactive protein; not pooled (ungraded). Social-Biological Interactions in Oral Disease: A 'Cells to Society' View. (2016) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 3300 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social-Biological Interactions in Oral Disease: A 'Cells to Society' View. 2016 All outcomes | Not specified; literature search covered publications from 1994 to 2015 | 10 | Not 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.
- Tooth loss and periodontitis by socio‐economic status and inflammation in a longitudinal population‐based study · 2013 · included by 1 of these review
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.