Question · asked by 1 review
Not applicable (single-group prevalence) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence): Proportion of teeth with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in ancient skulls
- Population
- Ancient/prehistoric human skulls (excavated/archaeological skeletal remains)
- Intervention
- Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
- Comparison
- Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
- Outcome
- Proportion of teeth with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in ancient skulls
Non-carious cervical lesions affected a pooled proportion of about 0.4% of teeth in ancient skulls (4 studies; ungraded, very high heterogeneity I2=97.6%).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Not applicable (single-group prevalence) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence) Proportion of teeth with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in ancient skulls · Ancient/prehistoric human skulls (excavated/archaeological skeletal remains) · Archaeological/museum skeletal (skull) collections; multiple countries and pre-industrial historical periods, Overall (all included studies) Non-carious cervical lesions affected a pooled proportion of about 0.4% of teeth in ancient skulls (4 studies; ungraded, very high heterogeneity I2=97.6%). Investigation of the presence of Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in ancient adult skulls: analyzing… (2024) All outcomes | Proportion 0.004 [0.001, 0.006] | 4 studies · 11578 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investigation of the presence of Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in ancient adult skulls: analyzing data from prehistoric and… 2024 All outcomes | 16 August 2023 (PubMed keyword update 15 January 2024) | 8 | 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.