Question · asked by 1 review

Prison-nursery setting / incarcerated-mother household (oral health status) vs Counterparts (community children): Oral health status (caries, oral hygiene, treatment indices)

Population
Preschool children of incarcerated mothers in UAE prison nurseries
Intervention
Prison-nursery setting / incarcerated-mother household (oral health status)
Comparison
Counterparts (community children)
Outcome
Oral health status (caries, oral hygiene, treatment indices)

One study found high caries (89.8%) and poor oral hygiene with low restorative care among preschool children of incarcerated mothers (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Prison-nursery setting / incarcerated-mother household (oral health status) vs Counterparts (community children)
Oral health status (caries, oral hygiene, treatment indices) · Preschool children of incarcerated mothers in UAE prison nurseries · UAE prison nurseries
One study found high caries (89.8%) and poor oral hygiene with low restorative care among preschool children of incarcerated mothers (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. (2021) All outcomes
Al Salami et al. reported caries prevalence of 89.8% (mean dmft 4.97) among preschool children of incarcerated mothers, similar to their counterparts, but worse oral hygiene, higher debris/plaque (93.8% vs 81.8%) and…1 studyGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade.
2021 All outcomes
May 4, 202142Not applicable

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

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.