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%

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

Salivary flow rate (stimulated) · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Stimulated salivary flow rate was significantly lower in anorexia nervosa patients than controls, but only unstimulated flow was meta-analyzed; this outcome is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Salivary pH · 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 lower salivary pH than healthy controls (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.24; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Salivary alpha-amylase · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

There is no significant difference in salivary alpha-amylase between anorexia nervosa patients and healthy controls (MD 6.32 U/l, 95% CI -6.14 to 18.79; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Anorexia nervosa probably reduces unstimulated salivary flow rate versus healthy controls (MD -0.27 ml/min, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.24; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Gingival (marginal) recession · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Gingival (marginal) recession was significantly higher in anorexia nervosa patients than controls in both reporting studies, but was not pooled or graded (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Dental erosion · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Dental erosion was more prevalent in anorexia nervosa patients than controls (low erosive-wear severity), but was not pooled or graded (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Anorexia nervosa patients tended to have higher plaque accumulation than healthy controls (significant in 2 of 3 studies), but results were not pooled or graded (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Caries experience · 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 higher caries experience (DMFT) than healthy controls (MD 2.00 teeth, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.13; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Exposure to clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins 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 clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins for subfertility changes endometrial cancer compared with untreated subfertile women and endometrial cancer risk (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Exposure to clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins 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 clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins for subfertility changes endometrial cancer compared with general population and endometrial cancer risk (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (mean number of new lesions per subject) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

Patients developed on average about 2.29 new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.12-3.46; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (mean number of lesions per subject) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Patients had on average about 2.24 ICLs per subject during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.79-2.70; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 15% of tooth surfaces developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.26; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs prevalence · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

ICLs prevalence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P=.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between patient age and number of ICLs · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Patient age was not significantly associated with the number of ICLs (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

ICLs incidence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P<.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of subjects developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 48% of patients developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled incidence 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.63; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

About 22% of tooth surfaces showed ICLs during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of subjects affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Around 57% of patients had ICLs during or after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled prevalence 0.57, 95% CI 0.48-0.65; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review