Question · asked by 1 review
Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening: Dental attendance
- Population
- School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India
- Intervention
- Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist)
- Comparison
- No screening
- Outcome
- Dental attendance
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening Dental attendance · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India · 3 to 4 months School dental screening programmes for oral health (2022) · Cochrane All outcomes | Data not pooled; 6281 participants (4 RCTs); Very low. There was substantial heterogeneity, in part due to study design (3 cluster-RCTs and 1 individually randomised trial). We are unable to draw conclusions about this… | 4 studies · 6281 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| School dental screening programmes for oral health 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-10 | 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.