Lower family socioeconomic status / income vs Higher socioeconomic position: Dental caries
- Population
- Healthy children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates
- Intervention
- Lower family socioeconomic status / income
- Comparison
- Higher socioeconomic position
- Outcome
- Dental caries
Evidence on socioeconomic status/income and caries was inconsistent: some studies linked lower income to higher caries while others found no association (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Lower family socioeconomic status / income vs Higher socioeconomic status / income Dental caries · Healthy children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates · UAE; schools (Ajman, Dubai) Evidence on socioeconomic status/income and caries was inconsistent: some studies linked lower income to higher caries while others found no association (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 | Findings were contradictory. Hashim et al. found children from low-income families had higher odds of severe early childhood caries (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.85), and Ahmad et al. reported significantly higher DMFT in… | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes | May 4, 2021 | 42 | 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.
- Severe early childhood caries and behavioural risk indicators among young children in Ajman, United Arab Emirates · 2011 · 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.