Question · asked by 1 review

GG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA + AG genotype: Dental caries susceptibility

Population
Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
Intervention
GG genotype of LTF rs1126478
Comparison
AA + AG genotype
Outcome
Dental caries susceptibility

The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.13).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
LTF rs1126478 GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype
Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls · Overall (n=4)
The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.13).
Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. (2020) All outcomes
OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13]4 studies · 2662 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis.
2020 All outcomes
Up to October 201916Not applicable

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.