ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2020
School dental screening programmes for oral health: Cochrane systematic review.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of school dental screening in improving oral health status and the use of dental services. This review is an update of the original review published in 2017. As you would expect of a Cochrane review, the methodology was of high quality.Study selection Inclusion criteria: randomised controlled trails (RCTs) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with another type of screening. The outcome of six of the trials presented dental attendance as the main outcome, while one trail (Nelson 2019) measured the main outcome as receipt of dental care. The studies had an average follow-up period of three to four months, with none reporting on the long term. A total of 3,093 records were identified in the initial search. Twenty-seven full-text copies were requested, and 17 reports and one ongoing study were excluded. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (reported in nine articles).Results The systematic review included seven trials (four from the UK, two from India and one from the USA) involving 20,192 children aged 4-15 years. Based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool, two trials were determined to be at low risk of bias, two trials were high risk of bias and three trials were assessed to be at unclear risk of bias. Due to the inconsistency in evidence, the review was unable to draw conclusions between traditional screening versus no screening. The comparison between criteria-based screening versus no screening was evaluated, showing a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), which suggested a possible benefit for screening. Criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08), with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. No trials reported on the potential adverse effects of school dental screening programmes.Conclusion The systematic review found there was very low certainty of evidence to support the role of school screening programmes in improving dental attendance. There was a low certainty of evidence to conclude that criteria-based screening, personalised referral letters or screening supplemented with motivation improve dental attendance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32978533What 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.