Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

65 questions · 68 findings · 5 reviews · Oral Health · All outcomes

No studies found 27 · 39.7%GRADE not reported 22 · 32.4%Very low 15 · 22.1%Low 4 · 5.9%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Harms of screening (false-positive/false-negative outcomes) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Screening for domestic violence vs Different screening tool

Proportion of victims of domestic violence detected by self report · Adults (16 years of age and older) who present to any healthcare setting with dental or facial injury

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Screening for domestic violence vs No screening

Proportion of victims of domestic violence detected by self report · Adults (16 years of age and older) who present to any healthcare setting with dental or facial injury

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Costs · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
    9 years (three cycles)
    The costs associated with the screening programme were reported after three cycles (nine years) (Subramanian 2009) (Additional Table 8). The benefit produced by a screen was 269.31 life-years saved per 100,000 for all…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Oral cancer incidence · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer incidence compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Quality of life · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Test performance (sensitivity and specificity) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Survival (proportion alive after diagnosis) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review

Criteria-based screening with specific (personalised) referral letter vs Criteria-based screening with non-specific referral letter

Dental attendance at orthodontist · School children, secondary school in the UK (aged 11 to 13 years)

It is very uncertain whether criteria-based screening with specific (personalised) referral letter changes dental attendance at orthodontist compared with criteria-based screening with non-specific referral letter (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Criteria-based screening with specific (personalised) referral letter vs Criteria-based screening with non-specific referral letter

Dental attendance at general dentist · School children, secondary school in the UK (aged 11 to 13 years)

It is very uncertain whether criteria-based screening with specific (personalised) referral letter changes dental attendance at general dentist compared with criteria-based screening with non-specific referral letter (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Criteria-based screening (dentist refers using pre-established criteria) vs Traditional screening

Dental attendance · primary or secondary school pupils

It is very uncertain whether criteria-based screening (dentist refers using pre-established… changes dental attendance compared with traditional screening (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional screening with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) vs Traditional screening

Dental attendance · School children, primary and secondary schools in India

It is very uncertain whether traditional screening with motivation (oral health education and… changes dental attendance compared with traditional screening alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries (receipt of dental care) · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

Developmental defects of enamel measured by any validated index · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

Trauma to permanent incisor teeth · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India
1 finding from 1 review
  • Milsom 2006 reported the prevalence of trauma to the permanent incisor teeth as a dichotomous outcome (reduction from baseline yes/no); we were unable to include this data in a meta-analysis.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

Dental attendance · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India
1 finding from 1 review
  • School dental screening programmes for oral health 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes
    3 to 4 months
    Data not pooled; 6281 participants (4 RCTs); Very low. There was substantial heterogeneity, in part due to study design (3 cluster-RCTs and 1 individually randomised trial). We are unable to draw conclusions about this…
    4 studies · 6281 participants
    Very low