Ischaemic stroke · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Ischaemic stroke (Hazard ratio (cohort studies)): HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
2 findings from 1 review
Kidney cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Kidney cancer: OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.58), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.
1 finding from 1 review
Body‐mass index (BMI) · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Body mass index: Z score -0.15 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.11), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
1 finding from 1 review
Sporadic colorectal adenoma · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Sporadic colorectal adenoma: OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
Type 2 diabetes (prevalent) · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Type 2 diabetes (prevalent): OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.82), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
All cause mortality · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for All cause mortality: HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.78), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
Rectal cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Rectal cancer: OR 0.50 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities
Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 2-year survival (93%, 95% CI 89-95%); evidence ungraded.
6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings
Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities
Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had high 2-year survival (93%, 95% CI 91-94%); evidence ungraded.
3 findings from 1 review
Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Children with carious primary teeth
ART with high-viscosity GIC and amalgam had similar class I restoration success at 24 months (ungraded).
2 findings from 1 review
RR 1.07 [0.91, 1.27]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
RR 0.93 [0.83, 1.06]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 2-year survival (62%, 95% CI 51-73%); evidence ungraded.
3 findings from 1 review
Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 1-year survival (86%, 95% CI 59-98%); evidence ungraded.
3 findings from 1 review
Colorectal cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Colorectal cancer: OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.73), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
1 finding from 1 review
OR 1.01 [0.59, 1.73]
4 studies
GRADE not reported
Breast cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Breast cancer: OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.44), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
Colon cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Colon cancer: OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.35), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
OR 0.88 [0.57, 1.35]
4 studies
GRADE not reported
Aggressive prostate cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Aggressive prostate cancer: OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.17), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.
1 finding from 1 review
Prostate cancer · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Prostate cancer: OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort associated with the procedure · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in participant experience (discomfort during procedure) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain (during procedure, primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in pain (during procedure, primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Costs (direct and indirect) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review