Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,052 questions · 1,797 findings · 134 reviews

No studies found 10 · 0.6%GRADE not reported 1,630 · 90.7%Very low 95 · 5.3%Low 23 · 1.3%Moderate 22 · 1.2%High 17 · 0.9%

30% SDF solution (applied annually) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

30% SDF solution (applied annually) was more effective than 5% NaF varnish (once weekly for 3 weeks) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.66; high certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

38% silver diamine fluoride vs 12% SDF solution (applied annually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

38% SDF solution (applied annually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied annually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.4; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

12% SDF solution (applied annually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

12% SDF solution (applied annually) did not differ from 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF; 30% or 38%) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of dentine caries · Preschool children with active dentine caries in primary teeth (mean age 3.4-4.0 years)

Silver diamine fluoride was about 2.5 times more likely than sodium fluoride to arrest dentine caries surfaces at 18 months (pooled OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.10; 2 RCTs), although between-study heterogeneity was high (I2=90.3%); certainty of evidence was not formally graded.

2 findings from 1 review

30% SDF solution (once weekly for 3 weeks) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

30% SDF solution (once weekly for 3 weeks) probably did not differ from 5% NaF varnish (once weekly for 3 weeks) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.18; moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

CPP-ACP vs Pre-treatment (baseline, same group)

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), fluorescence loss · Patients (mainly children) with white spot lesions (WSL)

Compared with baseline, CPP-ACP significantly improved white spot lesions on QLF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.07; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Teeth in the same arch/patient with the first permanent molar present

Caries and/or fillings in adjacent teeth · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

One study found fewer decayed or filled proximal surfaces but more decayed or filled occlusal surfaces in arches with an extracted first permanent molar; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Small for gestational age: OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.67), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Head circumference (mm) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Head circumference: WMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.34), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Gestational age at birth (weeks) · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mean gestational age at delivery: WMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.51), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Birth length · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth length: WMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.65), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Small for gestational age: RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.11), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Birthweight (g) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth weight: WMD 130.9 (95% CI 75.1 to 186.7), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Gestational diabetes · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Gestational diabetes: OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.85), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Maternal vitamin D concentration at term (25‐hydroxyvitamin D) (nmol/L) (ALL) · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Maternal vitamin D concentrations at term: WMD 47.08 (95% CI 23.76 to 70.39), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable.

1 finding from 1 review