SynthesisCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2026
Fluoride and Neurodevelopmental Hazard Modelling: An Assessment of Concentration-Response Analysis.
Synthesis in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2026. 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.
- Water fluoridation today: - benefits and challenges.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA National Academies Consensus Study report concluded that the evidence did not support an assessment that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental hazard. However, some researchers have undertaken benchmark dose modelling to determine a safe fluoride concentration level in water. Therefore, the suitability of the data for modelling fluoride concentration in urine and water and cognition response using standard criteria was assessed.
methodsData quality was evaluated using a standard tool. A random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean difference (SMD) and regression coefficients was conducted to assess effect sizes and heterogeneity. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benchmark dose modelling was utilised to determine the association between fluoride concentrations and cognition scores.
resultsAll four maternal urinary fluoride (MUF) studies did not meet the standards for acceptable quality, as identified by the EPA data quality criteria, which are necessary for combining data from different studies for dose-response analysis. The pooled estimate was not statistically significant (β
conclusionsThe data quality assessment revealed serious flaws that render the maternal urinary studies unacceptable for hazard assessment and benchmark dose modelling. Therefore, more appropriate studies in endemic fluorosis areas are needed to accurately determine whether fluoride is associated with adverse cognitive outcomes in populations with meaningful exposure.
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.