Not applicable (single-group prevalence) vs Not applicable: Prenatal vitamin D deficiency prevalence
The review reported a pooled prenatal vitamin D deficiency prevalence of 32%.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Not applicable vs Not applicable Prenatal vitamin D deficiency prevalence · Pregnant mothers · Pregnancy, Mostly developed countries (Europe and America), Overall The review reported a pooled prenatal vitamin D deficiency prevalence of 32%. Association between prenatal vitamin D deficiency with dental caries in infants and children: a systematic… (2024) All outcomes | Proportion 0.32 | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Association between prenatal vitamin D deficiency with dental caries in infants and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2024 All outcomes | 5 October 2023 (search range 2000 to October 2023) | 16 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.