Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban setting: Oral health practices
Toothbrush and toothpaste use was common, but lower in disadvantaged or slum populations where compared.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Slum setting vs Non-slum urban setting Oral health practices · Adults in LMIC urban and slum settings · LMIC slum and non-slum urban settings Toothbrush and toothpaste use was common, but lower in disadvantaged or slum populations where compared. Systematic review of oral health in slums and non-slum urban settings of Low and Middle-Income Countries… (2024) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | 11 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review of oral health in slums and non-slum urban settings of Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): Disease prevalence,… 2024 All outcomes | June 2023 (Scopus and Web of Science searched March 2024) | 23 | 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.