Association between nutritional status and children and adolescents' dental caries experiences: an overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID 1011
First Author T.O. Fernandes
Journal JOURNAL OF APPLIED ORAL SCIENCE
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10561963/
Keywords • Low methodological quality
• Dentistry
• Nutrition
• Paediatrics
• Risk of bias
Problem(s) • Insufficient literature searches
• Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• High risk of bias (ROBIS)
• No registered or published protocol
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Brazil
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
• ROBIS
• GRADE
Aim This study aimed to evaluate evidence from published systematic reviews to summarize the evidence on the association between children and adolescents’ dental caries experiences and nutritional status.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Of the 19 included Systematic Reviews (SRs) identified from Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Embase, and the Virtual Health Library up to May 2023, four studies either did not report perform a Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment or failed, did not use an appropriate tool, or did not report which tool was used. Most SRs reported following the PRISMA checklist but only four had registered their protocol records. Moreover, only three studies reported assessing certainty of evidence by GRADE. The ROBIS assessments showed that that 17 SRs showed “high risk of bias”. The main limitations of the SRs related to 1) the adequacy of the search strategies either because they were insufficient, or were not fully reported, or 2) a lack of discussion of the biases of primary studies in their syntheses as they neither evaluated the risk of bias using appropriate criteria or considered bias in their results/conclusions.
Number of systematic reviews included 19
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 119
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description