Question · asked by 1 review
Having siblings vs No siblings: Early childhood caries (ECC)
- Population
- Children aged 0-5 years in North Africa
- Intervention
- Having siblings
- Comparison
- No siblings
- Outcome
- Early childhood caries (ECC)
Having one sibling was associated with higher odds of ECC (OR 3.32).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Having siblings vs No siblings Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children aged 0-5 years in North Africa · Egypt (Kabil 2017), 1 sibling Having one sibling was associated with higher odds of ECC (OR 3.32). Prevalence and risk factors for early childhood caries in North Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes | OR 3.32 [1.15, 9.54] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence and risk factors for early childhood caries in North Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes | March 2025 | 18 | 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.