Discussion of individual clinical photographs (plaque highlighted by a disclosing agent) as an oral hygiene motivator, plus oral hygiene instruction vs No discussion of clinical photographs, but received the same oral hygiene instruction: Plaque
- Population
- People with ID (level of ID and age unclear); setting day centre
- Intervention
- Discussion of individual clinical photographs (plaque highlighted by a disclosing agent) as an oral hygiene motivator, plus oral hygiene instruction
- Comparison
- No discussion of clinical photographs, but received the same oral hygiene instruction
- Outcome
- Plaque
It is very uncertain whether discussion of individual clinical photographs (plaque highlighted by… changes plaque (medium term) compared with no discussion of clinical photographs, but received the same oral… (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Discussion of individual clinical photographs (plaque highlighted by a disclosing agent) as an oral hygiene motivator, plus oral hygiene instruction vs No discussion of clinical photographs, but received the same oral hygiene instruction Plaque (medium term) · People with ID (level of ID and age unclear); setting day centre · Medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) It is very uncertain whether discussion of individual clinical photographs (plaque highlighted by… changes plaque (medium term) compared with no discussion of clinical photographs, but received the same oral… (very low certainty). Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities (2019) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.10 [-0.85, 0.65] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-02 | 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.