What do systematic reviews say?

Simplified vs usual regimens

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 1310 participants
  Moderate

Simplified vs usual regimens

Simplified showed no clear difference in exacerbations requiring OCS People with 1 or more compared with usual regimens (low certainty).

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 2.33 [0.17, 32.58]
  1 study · 16 participants
  Low

Simplified vs usual regimens

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 103 participants
  Moderate

Simplified vs usual regimens

Simplified showed no clear difference in unscheduled visits compared with usual regimens (low certainty).

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.17 [0.72, 1.9]
  1 study · 1037 participants
  Low

Simplified vs usual regimens

Simplified showed no clear difference in absence from work/school compared with usual regimens (low certainty).

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.93 [0.37, 2.3]
  1 study · 1037 participants
  Low

Simplified vs usual regimens

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 1037 participants
  Low

Simplified vs usual regimens

Simplified showed no clear difference in all adverse events compared with usual regimens (low certainty).

• Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.76 [0.56, 1.04]
  1 study · 1233 participants
  Low

Comparison 2: any simplified antibiotic regimen vs 7 days injectable benzylpenicillin + injectable gentamicin

Comparison 2: any simplified antibiotic regimen showed no clear difference in neonatal mortality compared with the standard antibiotic regimen (7 days injectable benzylpenicillin… (moderate certainty).

• Community‐based antibiotic delivery for possible serious bacterial infections in neonates in low‐ and middle‐income… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.81 [0.44, 1.5]
  3 studies · 3476 participants
  Moderate

Comparison 2: any simplified antibiotic regimen vs 7 days injectable benzylpenicillin + injectable gentamicin

Comparison 2: any simplified antibiotic regimen showed no clear difference in treatment failure compared with the standard antibiotic regimen (7 days injectable benzylpenicillin… (moderate certainty).

• Community‐based antibiotic delivery for possible serious bacterial infections in neonates in low‐ and middle‐income… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.86 [0.67, 1.1]
  3 studies · 3476 participants
  Moderate

Comparison 2: any simplified antibiotic regimen vs 7 days injectable benzylpenicillin + injectable gentamicin

Comparison 2: any simplified antibiotic regimen showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with the standard antibiotic regimen (7 days injectable benzylpenicillin… (moderate certainty).

• Community‐based antibiotic delivery for possible serious bacterial infections in neonates in low‐ and middle‐income… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.38 [0.79, 2.41]
  3 studies · 3476 participants
  Moderate

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction) compared with two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  RR 3.15 [0.14, 72.88]
  1 study · 39 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Not measured
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  There was insufficient evidence of a clear difference between groups at six-month follow-up in operator-assessed quality of the dentures (Kawai 2005).
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction,… compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  MD 0 [-8.23, 8.23]
  1 study · 105 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) compared with two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  MD 0.5 [-2.67, 3.67]
  1 study · 39 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes mandibular denture satisfaction compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  SMD 0.21 [-0.11, 0.52]
  2 studies · 155 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes maxillary denture satisfaction compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  SMD -0.02 [-0.34, 0.29]
  2 studies · 155 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 month
  MD 0.05 [-2.37, 2.47]
  2 studies · 98 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 to 6 months
  There was insufficient evidence of a clear difference between groups for operator-assessed quality of the dentures for retention and stability of dentures (Regis 2013).
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Simplified caries prediction models (>=2 predictors; microbiome-primary studies excluded), but some pooled models include microbe predictors (Yaxuan 2023: S. mutans; Kim 2018: biofilm acidogenicity/saliva) vs No competing model

Simplified childhood caries prediction models show moderate pooled discrimination (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.84) but with very high heterogeneity (I2=97.3%) and all models at high risk of bias (PROBAST); ungraded.

• Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes

  Prediction of future/undiagnosed caries; cohort follow-up 3 months-10 years · Home/community preventive oral healthcare; detection of undiagnosed caries in asymptomatic children · Overall (6 validated models pooled)
  AUC 0.79 [0.73, 0.84]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported