Question · asked by 1 review

Psychological intervention + palatal arch vs Psychological intervention + palatal crib: Sucking cessation (short term)

Population
Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
Intervention
Psychological intervention + palatal arch
Comparison
Psychological intervention + palatal crib
Outcome
Sucking cessation (short term)

Psychological intervention + palatal arch led to lower sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention + palatal crib; GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Psychological intervention + palatal arch vs Psychological intervention + palatal crib
Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier) · Short term (less than 12 months)
Psychological intervention + palatal arch led to lower sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention + palatal crib; GRADE not reported.
Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 0.30 [0.13, 0.74]1 study · 22 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children
2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
2014-10Not listedNot 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.