Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs None (descriptive prevalence; random-effects pooled proportion): Dental caries prevalence
- Population
- Children (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries
- Intervention
- Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0)
- Comparison
- None (descriptive prevalence; random-effects pooled proportion)
- Outcome
- Dental caries prevalence
About 39% of children in LMICs had dental caries (pooled prevalence 0.387, 95% CI 0.284 to 0.495; 11 studies; very high heterogeneity I2=99%; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries assessment (dmft/DMFT index; ICDAS II in one study) vs None (descriptive prevalence; random-effects pooled proportion) Caries prevalence (total population) · Children (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries · Low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, Nigeria, Cambodia, Tanzania, Mexico, Ethiopia) About 39% of children in LMICs had dental caries (pooled prevalence 0.387, 95% CI 0.284 to 0.495; 11 studies; very high heterogeneity I2=99%; not GRADE-rated). Individual, Family, and Socioeconomic Contributors to Dental Caries in Children from Low- and Middle-Income… (2022) All outcomes | Prevalence 0.387 [0.284, 0.495] | 11 studies · 11115 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual, Family, and Socioeconomic Contributors to Dental Caries in Children from Low- and Middle-Income Countries. 2022 All outcomes | March 2022 (all databases searched 11 March 2022; MEDLINE 1946 to 11 March 2022; CINAHL 1937 to 11 March 2022) | 11 | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year) · 12-year-old children (permanent dentition) in Africa · 1 review
- Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs None (descriptive prevalence meta-analysis) · General Pakistani population (all ages and both sexes; predominantly children and… · 1 review
- Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year) · Healthy children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates · 1 review
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.