Question · asked by 1 review

Residence in heavily contaminated area (approx. 15-40 Ci/km2) vs Residence in non-contaminated (non-exposed) area (<1 Ci/km2): Dental caries

Population
Children aged 12-15 years (adolescents)
Intervention
Residence in heavily contaminated area (approx. 15-40 Ci/km2)
Comparison
Residence in non-contaminated (non-exposed) area (<1 Ci/km2)
Outcome
Dental caries

In adolescents (12-15 y) from heavily contaminated areas, individual studies gave inconsistent DMFT/dmft differences; the review did not pool them and drew no firm conclusion (ungraded).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Residence in heavily contaminated area (approx. 15-40 Ci/km2) vs Residence in non-contaminated (non-exposed) area (<1 Ci/km2)
Dental caries experience (DMFT/dmft index) · Children aged 12-15 years (adolescents) · Chernobyl fallout areas, Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Russian Federation), heavy contamination
In adolescents (12-15 y) from heavily contaminated areas, individual studies gave inconsistent DMFT/dmft differences; the review did not pool them and drew no firm conclusion (ungraded).
A systematic review of the caries prevalence among children living in Chernobyl fallout countries. (2019) All outcomes
WMD 1.06 [0.92, 1.20]1 study · 143 participantsGRADE not reported
Residence in heavily contaminated area (approx. 15-40 Ci/km2) vs Residence in non-contaminated (non-exposed) area (<1 Ci/km2)
Dental caries experience (DMFT/dmft index) · Children aged 12-15 years (adolescents) · Chernobyl fallout areas, Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Russian Federation), heavy contamination
In adolescents (12-15 y) from heavily contaminated areas, individual studies gave inconsistent DMFT/dmft differences; the review did not pool them and drew no firm conclusion (ungraded).
A systematic review of the caries prevalence among children living in Chernobyl fallout countries. (2019) All outcomes
WMD 0.67 [0.50, 0.84]1 study · 79 participantsGRADE not reported
Residence in heavily contaminated area (approx. 15-40 Ci/km2) vs Residence in non-contaminated (non-exposed) area (<1 Ci/km2)
Dental caries experience (DMFT/dmft index) · Children aged 12-15 years (adolescents) · Chernobyl fallout areas, Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Russian Federation), heavy contamination
In adolescents (12-15 y) from heavily contaminated areas, individual studies gave inconsistent DMFT/dmft differences; the review did not pool them and drew no firm conclusion (ungraded).
A systematic review of the caries prevalence among children living in Chernobyl fallout countries. (2019) All outcomes
WMD 4.45 [3.99, 4.91]1 study · 265 participantsGRADE not reported
Residence in heavily contaminated area (approx. 15-40 Ci/km2) vs Residence in non-contaminated (non-exposed) area (<1 Ci/km2)
Dental caries experience (DMFT/dmft index) · Children aged 12-15 years (adolescents) · Chernobyl fallout areas, Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Russian Federation), heavy contamination
In adolescents (12-15 y) from heavily contaminated areas, individual studies gave inconsistent DMFT/dmft differences; the review did not pool them and drew no firm conclusion (ungraded).
A systematic review of the caries prevalence among children living in Chernobyl fallout countries. (2019) All outcomes
WMD -0.04 [-0.31, 0.23]1 study · 73 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
A systematic review of the caries prevalence among children living in Chernobyl fallout countries.
2019 All outcomes
February 2017 to February 20189Not 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.