SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Prevalence of Oral Mucosal Diseases in Older Adults in Mainland China: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral mucosal disease (OMD) is a public health challenge globally, but the epidemiological findings in older adults have been inconsistent in China. Thus, this meta-analysis was carried out to explore the prevalence of OMD and its moderating factors in this population. An electronic literature search was conducted of both international (PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang) databases from inception to November 1, 2019. The Der-Simonian and Laird random effects model was used to synthesize the prevalence of OMD and its 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Twenty-four studies covering 23,653 older adults were included. The pooled prevalence of OMD was 23% (95% confidence interval: 17.9%-29.0%) Subgroup analyses and meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of OMD was significantly associated with the reporting sampling, year of publication, and survey (all
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.