Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31559535›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2020

A systematic review of risk assessment tools for early childhood caries: is there evidence?

M R Jørgensen, S Twetman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Pilot validation of the new Canadian Caries Risk Assessment Tool for preschoolers.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Why Is Caries Prevention in Children So Difficult? A Narrative Opinion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  10. Integrating oral and social factors in individual caries risk assessments in preschool children-a registry-based study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M R JørgensenDepartment of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Nørre Allé 20, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark.
S TwetmanDepartment of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Nørre Allé 20, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark. stwe@sund.ku.dk.
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the accuracy of commonly advocated caries risk assessment (CRA) tools in preschool children and to search for evidence whether or not this process provides better oral care and less caries in the future.

methodsAs an update of a previous systematic review, a search of electronic databases for relevant literature published between 2008 and 2018 was performed with aid of predetermined search strings. We considered only true prospective trials validating baseline risk categories over at least a 12-month period, and extracted the predictive values and assessed the quality of the papers by the QUIPS tool for prospective studies.

resultsSix studies were included, reporting on three manual checklists and two software tools. The National University of Singapore model displayed a good accuracy in two studies, while the accuracy of Cariogram ranged from poor to good in various populations. The manual checklists were only validated in one study each and displayed limited to poor accuracy. No study was identified that addressed questions around the long-term benefits of CRA.

conclusionsThis systematic review showed a relative paucity of prospective trials validating the existing caries risk assessment tools in preschool children and the question whether or not the CRA process results in better oral care remained unanswered. Although the accuracy was far from excellent, we still recommend the CRA tools in paediatric dentistry practice because the desirable effects most likely outweigh the undesirable effects.

Indexed as

Dental CariesRisk AssessmentChildChild, PreschoolForecastingHumansProspective StudiesCariesOral healthPreschool childrenRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID31559535
OpenAlexW2976239883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.