Question · asked by 1 review
Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs Caries-free status: CA VI activity
- Population
- Children (age about 2-9 years) across the 7 meta-analyzed activity samples; excludes Kivela 1999 adults (18-24 years), qualitative only and not in the meta-analysis
- Intervention
- Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0)
- Comparison
- Caries-free status
- Outcome
- CA VI activity
Salivary/biofilm CA VI activity is significantly higher in individuals with dental caries than in caries-free individuals (SMD 0.894, 95% CI 0.386 to 1.392; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries (caries-active; dmft/DMFT > 0) vs Caries-free individuals (dmft/DMFT = 0) Salivary/biofilm CA VI (carbonic anhydrase VI) activity · Children (age about 2-9 years) across the 7 meta-analyzed activity samples; excludes Kivela 1999 adults (18-24 years),… · Cross-sectional (single time point), Pediatric/community dental settings (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Finland) Salivary/biofilm CA VI activity is significantly higher in individuals with dental caries than in caries-free individuals (SMD 0.894, 95% CI 0.386 to 1.392; not GRADE-rated). Associations of the activity and concentration of carbonic anhydrase VI with susceptibility to dental… (2023) All outcomes | SMD 0.894 [0.386, 1.392] | 7 studies · 411 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associations of the activity and concentration of carbonic anhydrase VI with susceptibility to dental caries: A systematic review and… 2023 All outcomes | Inception to August 2022 | 10 | 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.