Question · asked by 1 review
External control of fluoride concentration vs Not applicable: Water samples with fluoride concentration outside the acceptable range
- Population
- Brazilian cities with artificially fluoridated public water supplies
- Intervention
- External control of fluoride concentration
- Comparison
- Not applicable
- Outcome
- Water samples with fluoride concentration outside the acceptable range
After excluding Silva et al., the pooled prevalence outside the acceptable range was 47.1%.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
External control of fluoride concentration vs Not applicable Samples with fluoride concentration outside the acceptable range · Brazilian cities with artificially fluoridated public water supplies · 1995-2013, Brazil, Sensitivity analysis excluding Silva et al. After excluding Silva et al., the pooled prevalence outside the acceptable range was 47.1%. External control of fluoridation in the public water supplies of Brazilian cities as a strategy against… (2021) All outcomes | Prevalence 47.1 [39.6, 54.7] | 11 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| External control of fluoridation in the public water supplies of Brazilian cities as a strategy against caries: a systematic review and… 2021 All outcomes | Until 10 August 2020 | 20 | Not applicable |
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.