Question · asked by 1 review
Oral hygiene interventions (mechanical plaque removal): knowledge-based, behavioural, or skills training for people with ID or their carers vs Usual care, no care, or a similar alternative intervention: Dental caries levels of people with ID
- Population
- People with intellectual disabilities (ID), living at home, in day care, in hospital or in a residential care setting; all levels of ID as defined by ICD-10
- Intervention
- Oral hygiene interventions (mechanical plaque removal): knowledge-based, behavioural, or skills training for people with ID or their carers
- Comparison
- Usual care, no care, or a similar alternative intervention
- Outcome
- Dental caries levels of people with ID
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Oral hygiene interventions (mechanical plaque removal): knowledge-based, behavioural, or skills training for people with ID or their carers vs Usual care, no care, or a similar alternative intervention Dental caries levels of people with ID · People with intellectual disabilities (ID), living at home, in day care, in hospital or in a residential care setting;… The review found no eligible studies for this question. Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities (2019) · Cochrane All outcomes | No studies measured dental caries levels. One RCT (Shaw 1991, Comparison 5) assessed DMFT at baseline only and did not report caries at any later time point. | 0 studies | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-02 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.