Caries distribution assessment (individual, tooth and surface levels) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year): Caries distribution (individual/tooth/surface level)
Caries distribution was skewed at individual, tooth and surface levels and too heterogeneous to meta-analyze (narrative synthesis of 11 studies; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Caries distribution assessment (individual, tooth and surface levels) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses only) Caries distribution (individual/tooth/surface level) · European adolescents aged 12–19 years · Europe (community, subnational and national dental surveys) Caries distribution was skewed at individual, tooth and surface levels and too heterogeneous to meta-analyze (narrative synthesis of 11 studies; not GRADE-rated). Dental caries at enamel and dentine level among European adolescents - a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes | No meta-analysis possible; caries distribution reported narratively from 11 studies as skewed at individual, tooth and surface levels, changing with age at tooth and surface level (Results – Caries distribution). | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dental caries at enamel and dentine level among European adolescents - a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022 All outcomes | 1 January 2000 to 20 September 2021 | 30 | 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.