Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

606 questions · 682 findings · 77 reviews

No studies found 99 · 14.5%GRADE not reported 215 · 31.5%Very low 197 · 28.9%Low 102 · 15%Moderate 48 · 7%High 21 · 3.1%

Food marketing exposure or greater marketing power vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food preference · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

In crossover studies with binary outcomes, food marketing increased food preference (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.03 to 6.22; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental caries (ECC/severe ECC) as exposure/grouping vs Caries-free controls

Relative abundance of S. mutans in saliva · Individuals assessed for dental caries, predominantly children with early childhood caries (ECC) or severe ECC (age about 1 to 4 years)

A few small studies report Streptococcus mutans relative abundance in caries versus caries-free children without pooling; the evidence is ungraded and not meta-analyzed.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental caries (ECC/severe ECC) as exposure/grouping vs Caries-free controls

Relative abundance of Veillonella spp. · Individuals assessed for dental caries, predominantly children with early childhood caries (ECC) or severe ECC (age about 1 to 4 years)

Evidence on whether Veillonella spp. relative abundance is higher or lower in children with dental caries than caries-free controls is inconsistent across 7 small observational studies; no pooled estimate was produced and the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food intake · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Food marketing was associated with a significant increase in children's food intake (pooled SMD, 0.25; combined RCT and nonrandomized evidence).

3 findings from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food preference · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Food marketing was associated with increased food preference (pooled SMD, 0.30; combined evidence).

3 findings from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Dental caries · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Evidence on food marketing and dental caries is very uncertain (very low certainty); 1 of 2 studies found an association.

1 finding from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Purchase requests · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Nonrandomized evidence on purchase requests is very uncertain (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food choice · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Food marketing probably increases children's choice of the marketed food (OR, 1.97; moderate certainty, RCTs).

3 findings from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food purchasing · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Food marketing showed no clear association with food purchasing by or for children (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Body weight / BMI · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Evidence on food marketing and body weight is very uncertain (very low certainty); a single study found no association.

1 finding from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Diet-related noncommunicable diseases · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

No eligible studies were found.

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Gingival index (GI) · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a higher gingival index than healthy controls (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.19; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Clinical attachment level (CAL) · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Clinical attachment level loss is greater in persons with orofacial cleft than in healthy controls (p<0.00001), but no pooled effect size was reported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Bleeding Index (BI) · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Bleeding index is significantly higher in persons with orofacial cleft than in healthy controls (p<0.0001), but no pooled effect size was reported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Oral microbiota composition · Individuals assessed for oral microbiota (mainly children and adolescents)

Oral microbiota composition differs between persons with orofacial cleft and healthy controls, synthesized qualitatively across 8 studies but not meta-analyzed (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Probing pocket depth · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a greater probing pocket depth than healthy controls (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Plaque · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a higher plaque index than healthy controls (MD 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.34; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Exposure to any ovary‐stimulating drugs for subfertility vs untreated subfertile women and endometrial cancer risk

Endometrial cancer · Women treated with ovary‐stimulating drugs for subfertility

It is very uncertain whether exposure to any ovary‐stimulating drugs for subfertility changes endometrial cancer compared with untreated subfertile women and endometrial cancer risk (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Exposure to any ovary‐stimulating drugs for subfertility vs general population and endometrial cancer risk

Endometrial cancer · Women treated with ovary‐stimulating drugs for subfertility

It is very uncertain whether exposure to any ovary‐stimulating drugs for subfertility changes endometrial cancer compared with general population and endometrial cancer risk (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anorexia nervosa (as exposure; diagnosed by DSM-III/III-R/IV/V) vs Healthy controls

Percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Anorexia nervosa is associated with significantly increased bleeding on probing versus healthy controls (MD 16.57%, 95% CI 12.89 to 20.25; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review