Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,486 questions · 2,727 findings · 268 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 600 · 22%GRADE not reported 229 · 8.4%Very low 789 · 28.9%Low 707 · 25.9%Moderate 314 · 11.5%High 88 · 3.2%

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs no treatment

Adverse events · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
Table 3 (adverse outcomes after one month; Haryett 1967), combined psychological plus orthodontic treatment group: reported upset 4/22 (18%); speech difficulty 6/22 (27%); eating difficulty 6/22 (27%); developing…
1 study
GRADE not reported

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs no treatment

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or… showed no clear difference in sucking cessation (short term) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (less than 12 months)
RR 6.36 [0.97, 41.96]
1 study · 32 participants
GRADE not reported

Psychological intervention: structured telephone call (verbal follow‐up and reassurance) vs placebo or no intervention

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Plaque · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and… showed no clear difference in plaque indices (permanent and deciduous teeth) compared with no intervention or delayed intervention (non-intervention control;… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 to 15 months
SoF (Plaque indices, follow-up 3 to 15 months): 'All 3 RCTs showed a reduction in plaque in the intervention group compared to control group'; 827 participants (3 RCTs); GRADE low; comment 'Data not suitable for…
3 studies · 827 participants
Low

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Caries increment on tooth surfaces (dmfs/DMFS) (prevented fraction) · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
15 months
PF 0.65 [0.12, 1.18]
1 study · 60 participants
Low

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Change in oral health knowledge and skills · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
Worthington 2001 reported changes in oral health knowledge and skills: improvement was apparent in both intervention and control groups at the 4-month follow-up (phase one) but greater in the intervention group (34%…
1 study
GRADE not reported

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Changes in dental attendance · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
Worthington 2001 found no change in reported dental visits over the course of the programmes, with 97% of children at baseline reporting visiting the dentist every 2 years.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Behavioural outcomes (reported and/or other measures, e.g. data tracking toothbrushes and collecting food wrappers) · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
No other behavioural outcomes (e.g. objective toothbrush tracking or food-wrapper collection) were measured by the four included studies.
0 studies
No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Adverse events · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
No study reported any adverse events.
0 studies
No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years
PF 0.49
1 study
GRADE not reported

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Frequency of cariogenic food and drink consumption · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
Worthington 2001: few children had problems identifying foods containing sugar; only 15% of intervention and 19% of control participants reported routinely consuming sugary snacks on arriving home from school; snacking…
1 study
GRADE not reported

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Frequency of toothbrushing · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
Worthington 2001 reported children's brushing frequency: almost all children (99%) at baseline reported twice daily brushing, and this level was maintained across all groups throughout the intervention (in baseline…
1 study
GRADE not reported

An intervention in which the focus is on work‐related risk factors on an individual level vs no intervention/no stress‐reduction interventionfor stress reduction

Stress symptoms ( · healthcare workers

3 findings from 1 review

Individual‐level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 87 participants
Very low
Individual‐level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 152 participants
Very low
Individual‐level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 161 participants
Very low

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Prodromal symptoms: transition to psychosis Endpoint data (events) · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

It is very uncertain whether group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy… changes prodromal symptoms: transition to psychosis Endpoint data (events) compared with non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 6.32 [0.34, 117.09]
1 study · 57 participants
Very low

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Global state: clinically important change in global state · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Mental state: clinically important change in mental state · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Behaviour: clinically important change in behaviour · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Adverse effects: at least one serious adverse event · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Quality of life: clinically important change in quality of life · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention

Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data (events) · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

It is very uncertain whether group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy… changes satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data… compared with non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.35 [0.81, 2.25]
1 study · 57 participants
Very low