Question · asked by 1 review
Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs no treatment: Adverse events
- Population
- Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
- Intervention
- Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch)
- Comparison
- no treatment
- Outcome
- Adverse events
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs No treatment Adverse events · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier) Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | Table 3 (adverse outcomes after one month; Haryett 1967), combined psychological plus orthodontic treatment group: reported upset 4/22 (18%); speech difficulty 6/22 (27%); eating difficulty 6/22 (27%); developing… | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2014-10 | 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.