Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768801›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2022

Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peter Akera, Sean E Kennedy, Raghu Lingam, Mark J Obwolo, Aletta E Schutte, Robyn Richmond

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter AkeraSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. p.akera@student.unsw.edu.au.
Sean E KennedySchool of Women's and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Raghu LingamSchool of Women's and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Mark J ObwoloDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda.
Aletta E SchutteSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Robyn RichmondSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUGulu University · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk factors for oral disease can potentially be ameliorated by school-based interventions. This review evaluates the effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health among children in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

methodsOur systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Emcare, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO website, Google Advanced and Google Scholar were searched for experimental and observational studies published between 1995 and 2021 in English. Quality assessment and data extraction of the articles were performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was decayed, missing, and filled teeth/surfaces [dmft(s)/DMFT(S)] scores. Seven meta-analyses were conducted.

resultsThe search yielded 1178 publications and after removing duplicates, 753 remained. A further 648 publications were excluded after screening titles and abstracts. 105 publications were reviewed in full and 34 were included. Narrative synthesis showed school-based interventions had a positive effect on oral health outcomes. Meta-analysis showed a significant positive effect on dental caries measured by DMFT scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.33; 95% CI - 0.56 to - 0.10; P = 0.005), net increment in DMFS scores (SMD =  - 1.09; 95% CI - 1.91 to - 0.27; P = 0.009), dmft and DMFT/S score > 1 (Risk Ratio = 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02) and plaque scores (SMD =  - 0.32; 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.18; P < 0.00001). Non-significant positive effect was observed for dental caries measured by net increment in DMFT scores (SMD =  - 0.34; 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.02; P = 0.06) and DMFS scores (SMD =  - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.70 to 0.18; P = 0.24), and gingival health (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI - 0.32 to 0.55; P = 0.60). Certainty of evidence was assessed as very low for all oral health outcomes.

conclusionSchool-based interventions can be effective in reducing the burden of oral disease among primary school children in LMICs, with skills-based education, teacher training, provision of access to oral health services and parental engagement emerging as particularly promising. Further research is required to provide evidence of effectiveness of primary school-based interventions to improve oral health. Systematic review registration The title of this review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020202599).

Indexed as

Dental CariesOral HealthChildDeveloping CountriesHumansPovertySchoolsChildrenDental cariesMeta-analysisOral healthPrimary school

Identifiers

PMID35768801
PMCPMC9245251
OpenAlexW4283701404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.