evidencegaps
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

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
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.

Summary of findings table ‐ Intralesional classical immunosuppresants (betamethasone or triamcinolone) vs placebo

Short‐term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of · adults with alopecia areata

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Intralesional classical… changes short‐term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of compared with placebo (very low certainty).

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)

Mean DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions showed no significant effect on DMFT scores (SMD -0.11; low certainty).

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)

Periodontal health status · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved periodontal health (SMD -1.18; moderate certainty).

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

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)

Plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly reduced dental plaque (SMD -1.92; moderate certainty).

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

Comprehensive oral health intervention (oral health education plus additional support: motivational interviewing, toothbrush/toothpaste provision, community engagement, and/or fluoride varnish/sealant application) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs) · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Comprehensive interventions produced a small, statistically significant reduction in surface-level caries (dmfs SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.02; 10 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss of dental hard substance adjacent to the restoration

The intervention showed no clear difference in composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 2: loss…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

HIV-infected children on antiretroviral therapy (HI) vs HIV-exposed but uninfected children (HEU)

Dental caries · Children and adolescents (<18 years) living with HIV (CLWH)

HIV-infected children on ART had higher odds of dental caries than HEU children in a cohort study (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.84; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review