Early childhood caries (ECC) vs Caries-free controls: Iron deficiency (as defined by trialists)
In a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study, ECC remained associated with higher odds of iron deficiency (OR 2.76, 95% CI 2.42 to 3.13); ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early childhood caries (ECC) vs ECC-free children (caries-free controls) Iron deficiency (ID) · Preschool children (<6 years) · Sensitivity analysis (Ramos-Gomez et al. 2002 excluded) In a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study, ECC remained associated with higher odds of iron deficiency (OR 2.76, 95% CI 2.42 to 3.13); ungraded. Iron deficiency and early childhood caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 2.76 [2.42, 3.13] | 7 studies · 9028 participants | GRADE not reported |
Early childhood caries (ECC) vs ECC-free children (caries-free controls) Iron deficiency (ID) · Preschool children (<6 years) · Overall Children with early childhood caries were more likely to have iron deficiency than caries-free children (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.85 to 3.73); ungraded. Iron deficiency and early childhood caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 2.63 [1.85, 3.73] | 8 studies · 9151 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iron deficiency and early childhood caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2021 All outcomes | March 2020 to September 2020 | 11 | 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.
- Bacterial, behavioral and environmental factors associated with early childhood caries · 2003 · included by 1 of these review
- Sadeghi 2012 · 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.