What do systematic reviews say?

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration):… probably leads to lower caries (lesion) progression measured by pairwise reading of… compared with non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing/oral hygiene… (moderate certainty).

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  18 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.31 [0.18, 0.53]
  4 studies
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.24 [0.14, 0.41]
  7 studies · 365 participants
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 18 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.18 [0.06, 0.50]
  3 studies
  Moderate

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (No information was reported by the included study.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  Short term (less than 12 months): no failures in either group; effect not estimable (Analysis 1.1.1; 76 teeth, 38 participants; one study, Hutcheson 2012).
  1 study · 76 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months to 48 months)
  RR 0.18 [0.06, 0.56]
  3 studies · 346 participants
  Moderate

Resin sealant (one micro-invasive treatment) vs Resin infiltration alone

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  Only one study (Martignon 2012) directly compared resin sealant versus resin infiltration; the review could not determine which technique is more advantageous and reported no direct effect estimate for this comparison.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (No information was reported by the included study.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (No information was reported by the included study.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 to 3 years
  The four studies that measured adverse events reported no adverse events after micro-invasive treatment (no events in either arm)
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on caries measured as change in decayed, missing and filled (DMF/dmf) figures at surface, tooth or whole mouth level
  0 studies
  No studies found

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in perinatal death (stillbirth and neonatal death including anomalies) compared with no Doppler ultrasound (low certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.8 [0.35, 1.83]
  4 studies · 11183 participants
  Low

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in serious neonatal morbidity compared with no Doppler ultrasound (low certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.99 [0.06, 15.75]
  1 study · 2016 participants
  Low

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound probably leads to lower stillbirth ‐ Fetal/umbilical vessels only compared with no Doppler ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.34 [0.12, 0.95]
  2 studies · 6877 participants
  Moderate

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in stillbirth ‐ Fetal/umbilical vessels + uterine artery compared with no Doppler ultrasound (low certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.41 [0.44, 4.46]
  2 studies · 5276 participants
  Low

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in caesarean section (elective and emergency) compared with no Doppler ultrasound (high certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.98 [0.85, 1.13]
  2 studies · 6373 participants
  High

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in preterm birth (before 37 weeks) compared with no Doppler ultrasound (high certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.02 [0.86, 1.21]
  4 studies · 12162 participants
  High

All routine Doppler ultrasound vs no Doppler ultrasound

All routine Doppler ultrasound showed no clear difference in neonatal admission to special care baby unit/neonatal intensive care… compared with no Doppler ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.99 [0.84, 1.17]
  3 studies · 7477 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in perinatal mortality (moderate certainty).

• Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.01 [0.67, 1.54]
  8 studies · 30675 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in preterm delivery < 37 weeks' gestation (high certainty).

• Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.96 [0.85, 1.08]
  2 studies · 17151 participants
  High

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in induction of labour (moderate certainty).

• Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.93 [0.81, 1.07]
  6 studies · 22663 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in caesarean section (high certainty).

• Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.02 [0.97, 1.09]
  6 studies · 27461 participants
  High

Intervention not reported

• Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported