Non-Cochrane · aetiology · PM30367654
Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
Mejia Gloria C, Elani Hawazin W, Harper Sam, et al. · BMC oral health · 2018 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0630-3
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
66
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
6
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 66 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adults aged 25 years and older from four high-income countries with fee-for-service adult dental care (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) with nationally representative oral examination survey data within a 5-year timeframe | 14,960 adults aged 25 years and older (Australia n=5,073; Canada n=3,278; New Zealand n=2,041; USA n=4,568) |
| Intervention | Lower socioeconomic position, measured by education and by income | Lowest education (primary) and lowest income (low tertile) |
| Comparison | Higher socioeconomic position (highest education category; highest income tertile) as reference | Highest education (university/tertiary) and highest income (high tertile) |
| Outcomes | Untreated tooth decay (prevalence, % DT>0); mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT); fair/poor self-rated oral health (SROH) | All three outcomes meta-analysed for both education and income: prevalence of untreated decay (% DT>0), mean DT, and fair/poor SROH (6 pooled random-effects estimates) |
| Study designs | Nationally representative cross-sectional survey examination data | Four cross-sectional national surveys (NSAOH, CHMS, NZOHS, NHANES) |
| Timing | Cross-sectional; surveys conducted between 2003 and 2009 | Surveys 2003 to 2009 (no overlapping time period across all four surveys) |
Search date: Not applicable (secondary analysis of existing national survey datasets; no bibliographic literature search). Databases: Four nationally representative survey datasets analysed: National Survey of Adult Oral Health (NSAOH; Australia, 2004 to 2006); Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS; Canada, 2007 to 2009); New Zealand Oral Health Survey (NZOHS; New Zealand, 2009); National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey…
Questions and results
Primary education vs University education
Population: Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, primary versus university education differed by 0.69 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.69 [0.43, 0.94] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, primary versus university education differed by 17.68 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 17.68 [6.62, 28.74] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, primary versus university education differed by 22.11 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 22.11 [14.21, 30.02] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, primary versus university education differed by 18.40 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 18.40 [13.13, 23.67] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2009 · Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, primary versus university education differed by 20.49 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=97.1%). Source: Fig. 1; I-squared=97.1%, p=0.000 · same question in other reviews | AD 20.49 [4.95, 36.04] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2004 · United States In United States, primary versus university education differed by 40.35 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 40.35 [35.19, 45.51] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2009 · Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, primary versus university education differed by 19.67 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=0.0%). Source: Fig. 1; I-squared=0.0%, p=0.861 · same question in other reviews | AD 19.67 [16.70, 22.65] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, primary versus university education differed by 0.61 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.61 [0.44, 0.78] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, primary versus university education differed by 0.43 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.43 [0.31, 0.54] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, primary versus university education differed by 12.86 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 12.98 [6.23, 19.73] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2009 · Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, primary versus university education differed by 0.58 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=57.5%). Source: Fig. 1; I-squared=57.5%, p=0.070 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.58 [0.43, 0.74] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, primary versus university education differed by 17.59 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 17.59 [7.09, 28.09] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, primary versus university education differed by 10.88 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 10.88 [8.42, 13.33] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, primary versus university education differed by 20.11 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 20.11 [15.76, 24.47] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, primary versus university education differed by 0.80 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 1 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.80 [0.41, 1.20] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Secondary education vs University education
Population: Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2004 · United States In United States, secondary versus university education differed by 27.5 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 27.5 [22.6, 32.5] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, secondary versus university education differed by 0.7 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.7 [0.4, 1.1] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, secondary versus university education differed by 10.4 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 10.4 [4.7, 16.2] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, secondary versus university education differed by 2.7 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 2.7 [-0.4, 5.7] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, secondary versus university education differed by 0.3 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.3 [0.2, 0.5] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, secondary versus university education differed by 13.8 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 13.8 [7.3, 20.4] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, secondary versus university education differed by 0.3 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.3 [0.1, 0.4] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, secondary versus university education differed by 15.2 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 15.2 [8.8, 21.6] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, secondary versus university education differed by 0.4 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.4 [0.1, 0.6] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, secondary versus university education differed by 6.7 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 6.7 [-1.3, 14.7] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, secondary versus university education differed by 14.1 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 14.1 [5.1, 23.1] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, secondary versus university education differed by 14.4 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 14.4 [7.7, 21.0] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Post-secondary education vs University education
Population: Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, post-secondary versus university education differed by 0.5 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.5 [0.2, 0.8] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, post-secondary versus university education differed by 6.8 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 6.8 [-1.3, 14.8] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, post-secondary versus university education differed by 0.2 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.2 [0.1, 0.3] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, post-secondary versus university education differed by 7.8 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 7.8 [3.7, 12.0] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, post-secondary versus university education differed by 2.4 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 2.4 [-1.3, 6.1] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, post-secondary versus university education differed by 7.7 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 7.7 [3.6, 11.8] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, post-secondary versus university education differed by 4.2 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 4.2 [-2.9, 11.2] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, post-secondary versus university education differed by 9.0 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 9.0 [4.9, 13.1] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, post-secondary versus university education differed by 0.2 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.2 [0.1, 0.2] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, post-secondary versus university education differed by 0.3 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.3 [0.2, 0.4] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2004 · United States In United States, post-secondary versus university education differed by 20.8 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 20.8 [16.3, 25.4] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, post-secondary versus university education differed by 4.1 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 4.1 [2.0, 6.3] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Low income vs High income
Population: Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, low versus high income differed by 11.90 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 11.90 [6.82, 16.98] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2009 · Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 0.44 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=76.4%). Source: Fig. 2; I-squared=76.4%, p=0.005 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.44 [0.23, 0.65] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2009 · Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 12.04 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=29.3%). Source: Fig. 2; I-squared=29.3%, p=0.237 · same question in other reviews | AD 12.04 [8.35, 15.73] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2009 · Overall random-effects meta-analysis Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 15.77 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=13.4%). Source: Fig. 2; I-squared=13.4%, p=0.326 · same question in other reviews | AD 15.77 [12.77, 18.77] | 4 studies · 14960 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2004 · United States In United States, low versus high income differed by 20.49 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 20.49 [13.04, 27.93] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, low versus high income differed by 13.93 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 13.93 [11.06, 16.81] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, low versus high income differed by 0.35 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.35 [0.24, 0.46] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, low versus high income differed by 18.77 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 18.77 [9.75, 27.79] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, low versus high income differed by 16.66 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 16.66 [7.47, 25.86] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, low versus high income differed by 0.63 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.63 [0.31, 0.95] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, low versus high income differed by 0.99 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.99 [0.49, 1.49] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, low versus high income differed by 8.93 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 8.93 [4.79, 13.06] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, low versus high income differed by 17.46 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 17.46 [8.00, 26.92] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, low versus high income differed by 16.91 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 16.91 [8.91, 24.91] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, low versus high income differed by 0.22 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Fig. 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.22 [0.08, 0.35] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Medium income vs High income
Population: Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, medium versus high income differed by 8.0 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 8.0 [3.0, 12.9] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, medium versus high income differed by 6.8 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 6.8 [2.1, 11.4] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, medium versus high income differed by 14.3 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 14.3 [5.4, 23.3] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2003-2004 · United States In United States, medium versus high income differed by 10.0 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 10.0 [3.8, 16.2] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, medium versus high income differed by 8.3 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 8.3 [4.1, 12.5] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, medium versus high income differed by 0.1 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.1 [-0.1, 0.2] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) 2003-2004 · United States In United States, medium versus high income differed by 3.4 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 3.4 [-2.2, 9.0] | 1 study · 4568 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, medium versus high income differed by 11.9 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 11.9 [3.7, 20.1] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, medium versus high income differed by 0.2 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.2 [0.1, 0.3] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2007-2009 · Canada In Canada, medium versus high income differed by 0.4 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.4 [0.2, 0.5] | 1 study · 3278 participants | Ungraded |
Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health 2004-2006 · Australia In Australia, medium versus high income differed by 3.1 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 3.1 [0.9, 5.2] | 1 study · 5073 participants | Ungraded |
Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) 2009 · New Zealand In New Zealand, medium versus high income differed by 0.4 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | AD 0.4 [0.2, 0.6] | 1 study · 2041 participants | Ungraded |
Included primary studies 6
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDC/NCHS 2005 (NHANES, USA) matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Health Canada 2010 (CHMS, Canada) matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| NZ Ministry of Health 2010 (NZOHS, New Zealand) Getting into the spirit. 2009 Spirit of Excellence award winners show creativity, passion for their work. PMID:20092010 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Slade 2007 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Slade 2007 (NSAOH, Australia) matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |