What do systematic reviews say?

Oral chloroquine vs placebo

• Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral chloroquine vs placebo

• Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral chloroquine vs placebo

Oral chloroquine showed no clear difference in adverse events: severe compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.45]
  1 study · 24 participants
  Low

Oral chloroquine vs placebo

• Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Restorative dental treatment under general anesthesia vs Before treatment (before-after)

One study found restorative dental treatment under general anesthesia significantly improved oral health-related quality of life for preschool children and their families (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  UAE
  Alantali et al. found that restorative dental general anesthesia resulted in significant improvement in child and family physical, psychological and social quality-of-life, with a large change noted in both the child…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Observed population vs Not applicable

Unhealthy gums or gingivitis in all oral regions was reported in 68.9% of participants.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Overall
  Prevalence 68.9
  1 study · 803 participants
  GRADE not reported

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.15), 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.63), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65) across the 4 studies. Prevalence 0.6% to 63.6%.…
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD -0.01 [-0.05, 0.03]
  1 study · 303 participants
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD -0.02 [-0.20, 0.16]
  1 study · 304 participants
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health behaviour (1-9 scale) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD 0.01 [-0.02, 0.04]
  1 study · 304 participants
  GRADE not reported

Low income vs High family income

Children from low-income families had higher odds of poor OHRQoL (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11-1.21; 4 studies; ungraded).

• The Association of Oral Health Status, demographic characteristics and socioeconomic determinants with Oral… 2020 All outcomes

  Upper-middle-income country (Brazil); studies 2010-2014
  OR 1.16 [1.11, 1.21]
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health behaviour (1-9 scale) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD 0.00 [-0.01, 0.01]
  1 study · 1608 participants
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall

Clinical examination with 24-month recall showed no clear difference in oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD 0.17 [-0.01, 0.35]
  1 study · 308 participants
  GRADE not reported

Younger children's age (3-5 years) vs Older children (>5 years)

Children aged 3 years had higher odds of poor OHRQoL than older children (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.42-2.57; 2 studies; ungraded).

• The Association of Oral Health Status, demographic characteristics and socioeconomic determinants with Oral… 2020 All outcomes

  Upper-middle-income countries (Brazil); studies 2011-2012 · Age 3 years
  OR 2.00 [1.42, 2.57]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported
• The Association of Oral Health Status, demographic characteristics and socioeconomic determinants with Oral… 2020 All outcomes

  Upper-middle-income countries (Brazil); studies 2011-2012 · Age 4 years
  OR 2.13 [1.50, 2.76]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection vs No BoNT (placebo or pre-treatment baseline)

BoNT injections were not associated with significant changes in oral/salivary pH across three studies (ungraded; no effect estimate reported).

• Oral health effects of botulinum toxin treatment for drooling: a systematic review. 2020 All outcomes

  Before vs after BoNT injection · Neurological-disease populations with drooling (e.g., cerebral palsy, Parkinson disease, adults with sialorrhea); specialist clinical care
  Wu et al. did not observe significant differences in participants' oral pH before and after BoNT-A injections between the active and control groups. There were also no statistically significant differences regarding…
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

All exposure-OHRQoL estimates pooled for publication-bias correction (meta-trim sensitivity); specific exposure set not defined in source vs Not specified

A trim-and-fill sensitivity analysis pooling every exposure estimate gave an overall OR of 0.17 (95% CI 0.13-0.21) after correcting for significant publication bias (Fig. 13); this combined estimate spans heterogeneous exposures and is a publication-bias sensitivity result (ungraded).

• The Association of Oral Health Status, demographic characteristics and socioeconomic determinants with Oral… 2020 All outcomes

  Children across multiple countries (Brazil, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, New Zealand) · Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias corrected), random-effects
  OR 0.17 [0.13, 0.21]
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD 0.04 [-0.04, 0.12]
  1 study · 1607 participants
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall

Clinical examination with 24-month recall showed no clear difference in oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP-14) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall (high certainty).

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD -0.24 [-1.55, 1.07]
  1 study · 305 participants
  High

Periodontal disease (present) vs Individuals without periodontal disease (by LOA)

Periodontal disease was associated with higher odds of poor OHRQoL (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.18; 3 studies; no heterogeneity; ungraded).

• The Association of Oral Health Status, demographic characteristics and socioeconomic determinants with Oral… 2020 All outcomes

  Upper-middle-income countries (Brazil); studies 2010-2014
  OR 1.15 [1.12, 1.18]
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported