Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,315 questions · 23,557 findings · 2,311 reviews

No studies found 4,183 · 17.8%GRADE not reported 3,930 · 16.7%Very low 5,371 · 22.8%Low 5,787 · 24.6%Moderate 3,320 · 14.1%High 966 · 4.1%

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

wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments

Prevalence of DENV infection (any severity, any phenotype)a · children and adults at risk of dengue infection

wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments probably leads to lower prevalence of DENV infection (any severity, any phenotype)a compared with no deployments (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Oral disease prevalence was generally high and worse in slum settings where compared, but no meta-analysis was conducted.

1 finding from 1 review

Institutionalization (living in an orphanage/institution) vs Parented children living with their families

Dental caries prevalence · Institutionalized orphan children (roughly 3 to 18 years)

Institutionalized orphan children may be at higher risk of dental caries than parented children (pooled RR 1.19), but the estimate is imprecise and not statistically significant (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) vs SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration)

Secondary prevention of caries · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)

It is very uncertain whether SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) changes secondary prevention of caries compared with SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review