Question · asked by 1 review
Low income vs High income: Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health
- Population
- Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
- Intervention
- Low income
- Comparison
- High income
- Outcome
- Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health
Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 15.77 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=13.4%).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Low income vs High income Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States · 2003-2009, Australia; Canada; New Zealand; United States, Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 15.77 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=13.4%). Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. (2018) All outcomes | AD 15.77 [12.77, 18.77] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | GRADE not reported |
Low income vs High income Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States · 2009, New Zealand, New Zealand In New Zealand, low versus high income differed by 18.77 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. (2018) All outcomes | AD 18.77 [9.75, 27.79] | 1 study · 2041 participants | GRADE not reported |
Low income vs High income Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States · 2003-2004, United States, United States In United States, low versus high income differed by 20.49 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. (2018) All outcomes | AD 20.49 [13.04, 27.93] | 1 study · 4568 participants | GRADE not reported |
Low income vs High income Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States · 2004-2006, Australia, Australia In Australia, low versus high income differed by 13.93 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. (2018) All outcomes | AD 13.93 [11.06, 16.81] | 1 study · 5073 participants | GRADE not reported |
Low income vs High income Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States · 2007-2009, Canada, Canada In Canada, low versus high income differed by 16.91 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. (2018) All outcomes | AD 16.91 [8.91, 24.91] | 1 study · 3278 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. 2018 All outcomes | Not applicable (secondary analysis of existing national survey datasets; no bibliographic literature search) | 6 | 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.