Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

410 questions · 836 findings · 55 reviews

No studies found 1 · 0.1%GRADE not reported 794 · 95%Very low 16 · 1.9%Low 12 · 1.4%Moderate 6 · 0.7%High 7 · 0.8%

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Fracture · Participants in observational studies

The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a SMD (to OR) of 0.31 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.42) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Body‐mass index (BMI) · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Body mass index: Z score -0.15 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.11), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Sporadic colorectal adenoma · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Sporadic colorectal adenoma: OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

All cause mortality (in CKD patients) · Participants in observational studies

The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a RR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Type 2 diabetes (prevalent) · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Type 2 diabetes (prevalent): OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.82), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

All cause mortality · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for All cause mortality: HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.78), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Rectal cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Rectal cancer: OR 0.50 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary dental health aide (PDHA) service-delivery models (PDHA program; PDHA + intensive staffing; PDHA + robust prevention) vs Baseline pre-intervention service-delivery scenario

Projected Significant Caries (SiC) index · Alaska Native children (below age 18)

A simulation projected a 50% drop in the Significant Caries index for children (12.3 to 6.1) under the PDHA model (certainty not graded).

2 findings from 1 review

Primary dental health aide (PDHA) service-delivery models (PDHA program; PDHA + intensive staffing; PDHA + robust prevention) vs Baseline pre-intervention service-delivery scenario

Projected proportion of caries-free children (5-18 years) · Alaska Native children (below age 18)

A simulation projected 0% of children aged 5-18 would be caries-free under the baseline scenario (certainty not graded).

3 findings from 1 review

Primary dental health aide (PDHA) service-delivery models (PDHA program; PDHA + intensive staffing; PDHA + robust prevention) vs Baseline pre-intervention service-delivery scenario

Projected receipt of school-based prevention services · Alaska Native children (below age 18)

A simulation projected that over 90% of children would receive school-based prevention services under the PDHA model, up from 53% (certainty not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary dental health aide (PDHA) service-delivery models (PDHA program; PDHA + intensive staffing; PDHA + robust prevention) vs Baseline pre-intervention service-delivery scenario

Projected dental care utilisation · Alaska Native children (below age 18)

A simulation projected that the PDHA program would raise dental care utilisation from 75% to 90% (certainty not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Ever utilised dental services · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Ever-use of dental services is low-to-moderate (17%-71%) and generally lower in slum/rural groups; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Periodontal disease prevalence · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Periodontal disease prevalence is high (23%-99%) across LMIC urban/slum populations; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Dental service utilisation within the past year · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Past-year dental service use varies widely (4%-72%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban setting

Determinants of oral diseases · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Older age, lower education and income, poor oral hygiene, and disadvantaged residential setting were associated with oral diseases; directions varied across studies.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum residence vs Non-slum urban setting

Dental caries · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Slum residents had non-significantly higher odds of caries than non-slum residents (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94-1.56; single study); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum residence vs Non-slum urban setting

Periodontal pocket (odds), slum vs non-slum residence · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Slum residents had significantly higher odds of periodontal pocketing than non-slum residents (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13-1.98; single study); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Caries experience (mean DMFT) · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Mean DMFT ranges from 0.26 to 16.6 across LMIC urban/slum populations; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review