Question · asked by 1 review

Low socioeconomic status (>22.4% of the population) vs Not applicable: Dental caries

The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for low socioeconomic status was 10.49365.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Low socioeconomic status (>22.4% of the population) vs Not applicable
Mean DMFT · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies · Country-level study populations, Unadjusted model
The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for low socioeconomic status was 10.49365.
Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review… (2018) All outcomes
Meta-regression coefficient 10.493657 studiesGRADE not reported
Low socioeconomic status (>22.4% of the population) vs Not applicable
Mean DMFT · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies · Country-level study populations, Model 2 adjusted
The Model 2 adjusted meta-regression coefficient for low socioeconomic status was 10.35391.
Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review… (2018) All outcomes
Meta-regression coefficient 10.353917 studiesGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

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.