4.4 Review

The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta-analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12783

关键词

early childhood caries; epidemiology; oral health; preschool children; systematic review

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [857287]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early childhood caries is a global health issue, affecting nearly half of preschool children. The prevalence of ECC varies widely across countries, with differences between countries explaining a significant amount of observed variance.
Aim To estimate the global prevalence of early childhood caries using the WHO criteria. Design Systematic review of studies published from 1960 to 2019. Data sources: PubMed, Google Scholar, SciELO, and LILACS. Eligibility criteria were articles using: dmft-WHO diagnostic criteria with calibrated examiners, probability sampling, and sample sizes. Study selection: Two reviewers searched, screened, and extracted information from the selected articles. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. The protocol is available on PROSPERO 2014 registration code CRD42014009578. Results From 472 reports, 214 used WHO criteria and 125 fit the inclusion criteria. Sixty-four reports of 67 countries (published 1992-2019) had adequate data to be summarised in the meta-analysis. They covered 29 countries/59018 children. Global random-effects pooled prevalence was (percentage[95% CI]) 48[43, 53]. The prevalence by continent was Africa: 30[19, 45]; Americas: 48 [42, 54]; Asia: 52[43, 61]; Europe: 43[24, 66]; and Oceania: 82[73, 89]. Differences across countries explain 21.2% of the observed variance. Conclusions Early childhood caries is a global health problem, affecting almost half of preschool children. Results are reported from 29 of 195 countries. ECC prevalence varied widely, and there was more variance attributable to between-country differences rather than continent or change over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据