Habbu Shweta G, Krishnappa Pushpanjali
Dr. H.S.R.S.M. Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, Maharashtra, India.
Int Dent J. 2015 Apr;65(2):57-64. doi: 10.1111/idj.12137. Epub 2014 Oct 24.
So that resources and manpower are allocated in a way of most benefit to the population, systematic review of available evidence on the effectiveness of programmes and interventions is required.
To assess the quality of evidence presented in studies carried out to investigate the effectiveness of oral health education in children.
The MEDLINE (PubMed) bibliographic database was searched for English-language articles published from 2005 to 2011. Fifty-five articles were identified by the literature search, and the relevance of each article was determined by examining the title and the abstract. Sixteen original research studies met the inclusion criteria. These articles were read in full and scored independently by two reviewers, with scoring based on predetermined criteria. Articles scoring less than 10 were excluded from the study. For each paper that achieved a validity score of more than 10 (n = 11), data concerning the objectives of the intervention, the types and numbers of participants and the outcomes were extracted from the article. Considering the absence of homogeneity among the articles (as a result of variation in the age of subjects, type of intervention and outcome measures) quantitative analysis was not conducted. The publications were grouped based on their outcome measures: (i) plaque and gingival health; (ii) caries incidence; (iii) knowledge, attitude and oral health-related behaviour; and (iv) toothbrushing skills.
The results of this analysis suggest that further efforts are required to synthesise, systematically, current information about dental health education, along with the maintenance of rigorous scientific standards in research.
为了以最有利于人群的方式分配资源和人力，需要对项目和干预措施有效性的现有证据进行系统评价。
评估为调查儿童口腔健康教育有效性而开展的研究中所呈现证据的质量。
在MEDLINE（PubMed）书目数据库中检索2005年至2011年发表的英文文章。通过文献检索识别出55篇文章，并通过检查标题和摘要确定每篇文章的相关性。16项原始研究符合纳入标准。两名评审员独立阅读并完整阅读这些文章，并根据预定标准进行评分。得分低于10分的文章被排除在研究之外。对于每篇效度得分超过10分的论文（n = 11），从文章中提取有关干预目标、参与者类型和数量以及结果的数据。考虑到文章之间缺乏同质性（由于受试者年龄、干预类型和结果测量的差异），未进行定量分析。这些出版物根据其结果测量进行分组：（i）牙菌斑和牙龈健康；（ii）龋齿发病率；（iii）知识、态度和与口腔健康相关的行为；以及（iv）刷牙技巧。
该分析结果表明，需要进一步努力系统地综合有关牙齿健康教育的当前信息，并在研究中维持严格的科学标准。
