What do systematic reviews say?

Populations in countries with a lower Human Development Index (high category, HDI <0.800) vs Populations in countries with a higher Human Development Index (very high, HDI >=0.800)

Pooled caries experience (DMFT) was similar in very-high-HDI and high-HDI countries, and meta-regression found no significant association between national HDI and DMFT; ungraded observational evidence with very high heterogeneity.

• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Very high HDI (>=0.800)
  MEAN 11.91 [10.20, 13.63]
  19 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Overall (very high + high HDI)
  MEAN 11.49 [9.96, 13.03]
  25 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · High HDI (<0.800)
  MEAN 10.01 [5.34, 14.69]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported

Populations with a low level of schooling (>=33.60% of the population with low schooling) vs Populations with a higher level of schooling (<33.60% of the population with low schooling)

Population level of schooling was not significantly associated with caries experience (DMFT) in subgroup meta-analysis or meta-regression; ungraded observational evidence with very high heterogeneity.

• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Unadjusted model
  Meta-regression coefficient -2.301079
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported
• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Low schooling (>=33.60% with low schooling)
  MEAN 9.63 [4.38, 14.89]
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Overall
  MEAN 10.87 [7.53, 14.20]
  11 studies
  GRADE not reported

Populations with a lower proportion of university-educated people (<33.78% with university level) vs Populations with a higher proportion of university-educated people (>=33.78% with university level)

The proportion of university-educated people was not associated with caries experience (DMFT); pooled DMFT was similar across subgroups and the meta-regression was non-significant; ungraded observational evidence.

• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · High university (>=33.78%)
  MEAN 10.91 [7.95, 13.87]
  9 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Low university (<33.78%)
  MEAN 10.62 [7.30, 13.93]
  9 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Socioeconomic Factors and Caries in People between 19 and 60 Years of Age: An Update of a Systematic Review and… 2018 All outcomes

  Population/community-based studies of adults aged 19-60 years across multiple countries (studies published 1975-2016) · Adjusted (Model 1)
  Meta-regression coefficient -4.132903
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Habitat manipulation vs no intervention

• Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 participants
  Very low

Habitat manipulation vs no intervention

It is very uncertain whether habitat manipulation changes malaria parasite prevalence compared with no intervention (very low certainty).

• Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.01 [0, 0.16]
  2 participants
  Very low

Habitat manipulation vs no intervention

It is very uncertain whether habitat manipulation changes EIR compared with no intervention (very low certainty).

• Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.05 [0, 1.03]
  1 participants
  Very low

Habitat manipulation vs no intervention

• Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 participants
  Low

Habitat manipulation vs no intervention

• Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 3 participants
  Low

Manipulative therapy vs control condition

• Manipulative therapies for infantile colic 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 223 participants
  Low

Manipulative therapy vs control condition

Manipulative therapy showed no clear difference in presence/absence of colic Global impression of change scale… compared with control condition (low certainty).

• Manipulative therapies for infantile colic 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 11.12 [0.46, 267.52]
  3 studies · 185 participants
  Low

Manipulative therapy vs control condition

• Manipulative therapies for infantile colic 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 102 participants
  GRADE not reported

Manipulation (cervical) vs oral medicine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Manipulation (thoracic) vs inactive control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Manipulation (thoracic) vs inactive control

Manipulation (thoracic) showed no clear difference in chronic neck pain Short‐term compared with inactive control (low certainty).

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 111 participants
  Low

Manipulation (thoracic) vs inactive control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Manipulation (cervical) vs oral medicine

Manipulation (cervical) showed no clear difference in acute and subacute neck pain Intermediate‐term compared with oral medicine (moderate certainty).

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 182 participants
  Moderate

Manipulation (cervical) vs oral medicine

Manipulation (cervical) showed no clear difference in acute and subacute neck pain Long‐term compared with oral medicine (moderate certainty).

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 181 participants
  Moderate

Manipulation (cervical) vs oral medicine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Manipulation (cervical) vs oral medicine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Manipulation (cervical) vs oral medicine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found