Disability (developmental, intellectual, or sensory) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence): Moderate gingival inflammation / gingival health
Gingival inflammation is common among persons with disabilities in Saudi Arabia (moderate-to-severe up to about 60%), reported narratively without a pooled comparative estimate (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Disability (developmental, intellectual, or sensory) vs NA (single-group prevalence; no non-disabled comparison reported) Moderate gingival inflammation / gingival health · Persons with disabilities (children and adults with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, hearing impairment, or… · Cross-sectional, Hearing-impairment and cerebral-palsy clinical settings in Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) Gingival inflammation is common among persons with disabilities in Saudi Arabia (moderate-to-severe up to about 60%), reported narratively without a pooled comparative estimate (ungraded). Disabilities and Disparities in Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis… (2024) All outcomes | Narrative synthesis (no pooled estimate). Moderate-to-severe gingival inflammation up to about 60% among PWDs (abstract). Alkahtani 2019 (hearing-impaired adults, single-arm): 60.1% had moderate gingival inflammation… | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabilities and Disparities in Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Saudi Arabia. 2024 All outcomes | 1 July 2024 (initial search); 25 September 2024 (last update) | 10 | Not applicable |
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.