evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,587 questions · 5,761 findings · 495 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,011 · 17.5%GRADE not reported 1,797 · 31.2%Very low 1,100 · 19.1%Low 1,052 · 18.3%Moderate 649 · 11.3%High 152 · 2.6%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Gamified oral health interventions (mobile apps, serious games, augmented reality, game-based education) vs Conventional or traditional oral health education, or non-gamified interventions (comparator varied; several studies were single-arm/uncontrolled)

Oral hygiene behavior (brushing habits, preventive dental visits, dietary choices) · Children or adolescents

Gamified interventions appear to improve oral hygiene behaviors (brushing habits, preventive dental visits) in children, but the evidence is narrative and ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review
  • The Application of Gamification in Children's Oral Health Management: Systematic Review. 2025 All outcomes
    Post-intervention (predominantly short-term; long-term follow-up in a minority of studies) · School-based settings, specialized dental clinics, and home-based environments
    A gesture-based motion-capture game enhanced brushing independence and skill retention (P<.001) [Kang 2021]; 58.8% of caregivers reported their children brushed more often when using gamified applications [France…
    Studies not reported
    GRADE not reported

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral mucositis (severe) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… probably leads to lower oral mucositis (severe) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral mucositis (mean severity on WHO 0 to 4 scale) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (mean severity on WHO 0 to 4 scale) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral pain · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment
3 findings from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral mucositis (any severity) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Number of days unable to take medicine orally · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Self-efficacy related to oral health · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based educational interventions significantly improved oral health self-efficacy (SMD 1.49; low certainty), though between-study heterogeneity was very high.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health attitude (SMD 9.32; low certainty); the very large effect warrants cautious interpretation.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health-related quality of life · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health-related quality of life (SMD 7.38; low certainty), with very high heterogeneity.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health behaviour (1-9 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health behavior (SMD 2.58; low certainty), with very high heterogeneity.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health knowledge (SMD 1.09; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Sociodemographic and behavioural factors (older age, lower education, lower income, poor oral hygiene/brushing, smoking, disadvantaged/slum residence, sex) vs Referent groups (younger, higher education/income, better oral hygiene, non-slum residence)

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

Age, education, income, oral-hygiene behaviour, dental-visit pattern and slum/disadvantaged residence are associated with oral disease; gender effects are disease-specific; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Gene sequencing (GS) applied to diagnose/manage oral conditions (predominantly 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing of the oral microbiome; also genome-wide/whole-genome sequencing) vs Negligible ('abysmal') effect of gene sequencing; no separate comparator arm (within-sample event contrast in the forest plots)

Noticeable impact of gene sequencing on diagnosing/managing oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…

Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing had a statistically significant impact on diagnosing/managing oral-cavity disorders (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.54); certainty not GRADE-rated.

2 findings from 1 review

Gene sequencing (GS) applied to diagnose/manage oral conditions (predominantly 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing of the oral microbiome; also genome-wide/whole-genome sequencing) vs Negligible ('abysmal') effect of gene sequencing; no separate comparator arm (within-sample event contrast in the forest plots)

Reduction in occurrence of oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…

Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing was associated with a statistically significant risk difference for impact on oral-cavity disorders (RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.26); certainty not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral vs IV followed by oral (11 days) therapy

Renal parenchymal damage at 6 to 12 months: all included children with acute pyelonephritis DMSA scans · children with acute pyelonephritis

Oral showed no clear difference in renal parenchymal damage at 6 to 12 months: all included children… compared with IV followed by oral (11 days) therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral vs IV followed by oral (11 days) therapy

Renal parenchymal damage at 6 to 12 months: children with renal parenchymal damage on initial DMSA · children with acute pyelonephritis

Oral showed no clear difference in renal parenchymal damage at 6 to 12 months: children with renal… compared with IV followed by oral (11 days) therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combined oral and intravenous vs oral or intravenous alone

Wound infection · colorectal surgery

Combined oral and intravenous leads to lower surgical wound infection: oral + iv versus iv alone compared with oral or intravenous alone (high certainty).

2 findings from 1 review