Summary of findings 5.

Traditional screening with motivation compared to traditional screening for increasing dental attendance

Traditional screening with motivation compared to traditional screening for increasing dental attendance
Patient or population: school children Setting: primary and secondary schools Intervention: traditional screening with motivation Comparison: traditional screening
Outcomes	Relative effect (95% CI)	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)			Number of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	What happens
		Without traditional screening with motivation	With traditional screening with motivation	Difference
Dental attendance Follow‐up: mean 3 months	RR 3.08 (2.57 to 3.71)	10.0%	30.9% (25.8 to 37.2)	20.9% more (15.7 more to 27.2 more)	2486 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1	There is 208% relative increase in the attendance of the motivation group compared to control group with 95% CI ranging from 157% to 271% increase in attendance.
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

¹ Hebbal 2005 trial has unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of performance bias. Downgraded by two levels