What do systematic reviews say?

Questionnaire design: short vs usual questionnaire

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Monetary incentives vs addition of a monetary reward

It is very uncertain whether monetary incentives: addition of monetary incentives changes retention [ compared with addition of a monetary reward (very low certainty).

• Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.91, 1.09]
  4 studies · 3765 participants
  Very low

Behavioural interventions: theory informed cover letter vs usual cover letter

It is very uncertain whether behavioural interventions: theory informed cover letter changes retention [ compared with usual cover letter (very low certainty).

• Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.05 [0.98, 1.12]
  4 studies · 3343 participants
  Very low

Impact of recruitment: optimised information vs standard information

It is very uncertain whether impact of recruitment: optimised information changes retention [ compared with standard information (very low certainty).

• Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.96 [0.85, 1.09]
  2 studies · 1285 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in retention [ (low certainty).

• Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.15]
  3 studies · 1543 participants
  Low

Prompts: Electronic prompt vs NO PROMPT

It is very uncertain whether prompts: Electronic prompt changes retention [ compared with no prompt (very low certainty).

• Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.03 [0.98, 1.08]
  5 studies · 2897 participants
  Very low

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
  No eligible studies. 'No studies reported the inclusion of a low prevalence (0% to 14%) of d3/D3 of tooth surfaces'; all included studies reported d3/D3 prevalence of 15% or above, so the planned low-prevalence…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.15), 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.63), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65) across the 4 studies. Prevalence 0.6% to 63.6%.…
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 studies with low prevalence (<=10%) sensitivity ranged from 0.50 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

High-volume irrigation (~175 mL) vs Low-volume irrigation (~25 mL)

It is very uncertain whether high-volume irrigation (~175 mL) changes wound infection compared with low-volume irrigation (~25 mL) (very low certainty).

• Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 week · high vs low volume
  RR 0.17 [0.02, 1.37]
  1 study · 211 participants
  Very low

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 12-month recall

Clinical examination with 24-month recall showed no clear difference in total time (examination plus treatment) (minutes) compared with clinical examination with 12-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years · 3-5 year olds (primary teeth)
  MD -10 [-26.7, 6.7]
  1 study · 58 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years · 16-20 year olds (permanent teeth)
  MD -23.7 [-43.28, -4.12]
  1 study · 127 participants
  GRADE not reported

High-volume evacuation (HVE) vs Conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector)

It is very uncertain whether high-volume evacuation (HVE) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during… compared with conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector) (very low certainty).

• Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD -2.30 [-5.32, 0.72]
  1 study · 6 participants
  Very low

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 12-month recall

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Summary of findings 1 lists 'Periodontal disease: Not reported' for the 24-month versus 12-month comparison (Wang 1992 did not measure it).
  0 studies
  No studies found

High-volume irrigation (~175 mL) vs Low-volume irrigation (~25 mL)

It is very uncertain whether high-volume irrigation (~175 mL) changes alveolar osteitis compared with low-volume irrigation (~25 mL) (very low certainty).

• Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 week · high vs low volume
  RR 0.52 [0.27, 1.02]
  1 study · 211 participants
  Very low

Mechanical (high-volume) irrigation vs Manual (low-volume) irrigation

It is very uncertain whether mechanical (high-volume) irrigation changes wound infection compared with manual (low-volume) irrigation (very low certainty).

• Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 week · mechanical vs manual
  RR 0.50 [0.05, 5.43]
  1 study · 99 participants
  Very low

Combination system (Isolite) vs Conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector)

It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic… compared with saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) (very low certainty).

• Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  After AGP
  MD -0.35 [-0.99, 0.29]
  1 study · 50 participants
  Very low
• Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During AGP
  MD -0.31 [-0.82, 0.20]
  1 study · 50 participants
  Very low

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 12-month recall

It is very uncertain whether clinical examination with 24-month recall changes dental caries: dmfs increment (primary teeth) compared with clinical examination with 12-month recall (very low certainty).

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years · 3-5 year olds (primary teeth)
  MD 0.90 [-0.16, 1.96]
  1 study · 58 participants
  Very low