Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,534 questions · 5,247 findings · 456 reviews

No studies found 1,142 · 21.8%GRADE not reported 1,503 · 28.6%Very low 1,040 · 19.8%Low 869 · 16.6%Moderate 554 · 10.6%High 139 · 2.6%

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

Older age vs Younger adults (population mean age <=33.4 years)

Oral health-related quality of life · Adolescents (10-19 years)

The abstract reports older age is associated with worse OHRQoL, but the body notes the evidence on age is limited and conflicting (narrative synthesis; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating).

2 findings from 1 review

Late tooth brushing initiation (>=12 months, or >=2 years in some studies) vs Early tooth brushing initiation (<12 months, or <2 years)

Early childhood caries (ECC) · Healthy children under 6 years of age (6 months to 6 years); preschool children

In the primary pooled analysis, late tooth brushing initiation was associated with a non-significant 40% higher odds of early childhood caries (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.16), with very high heterogeneity (I2=90.5%); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Number of visits · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient perception: pain · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Economic factors · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Omega‐3 vs placebo

Mental state: psychotic symptoms Average total score (PANSS, higher score = worse, scale from 30‐210) Long‐term (up to 7 years) · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis
1 finding from 1 review

Home (point‐of‐use) fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders vs placebo or no intervention

Anaemia · preschool and school‐age children

Point‐of‐use fortification of foods with micronutrients powders (MNP) probably leads to lower anaemia (defined as haemoglobin < 110 g/L for children aged 24‐59… compared with no intervention or placebo (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental (tooth) agenesis vs No dental agenesis

Oral health-related quality of life · Adolescents (10-19 years)

The umbrella review reported insufficient scientific evidence to support an association between dental agenesis and oral health-related quality of life.

2 findings from 1 review

Older child age (months) vs Younger age (reference)

Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children aged 0-5 years in North Africa

Age 48-59 months was associated with higher odds of ECC (OR 2.602).

2 findings from 1 review