Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings ‐ dietary advice versus standard care.

Dieatary advice for infants and young children compared with standard care for preventing caries in young children
Population: for interventions, pregnant women and mothers or other caregivers of infants in the first year of life; for outcomes, children up to 6 years of age Setting: Finland (1 RCT) Intervention: advice about how to achieve a healthy diet for their infants (tailored advice focused on ensuring a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol intake) Comparison: standard care
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Standard care	Dietary advice
Caries presence in primary teeth (children 0 to 6 yrs)	71 per 1000	77 per 1000 (25 to 241)	RR 1.08 (0.34 to 3.37)	148 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1
dmfs index score (range 0 to 80) (children 0 to 6 yrs)	Not assessed					The dmfs index expresses the total number of decayed missing or filled surfaces in primary dentition (five per posterior tooth and four per anterior tooth) as a score (range 0‐80 surfaces, lower is better)
dmft index score (range 0 to 20) (children 0 to 6 yrs)	Not assessed					The dmft index expresses the total number of teeth affected by tooth decay (missing or filled) in the primary dentition as a score (range 0 to 20, lower is better)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; dmfs: decayed, missing and filled surfaces (in primary teeth of children); dmft: decayed, missing and filled teeth (primary, of children); NA: not applicable; RR: risk ratio; yrs: years
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.

¹ROB (‐1): downgraded for risk of selection bias, and possible bias due to attrition (not downgraded for lack of blinding of participants and personnel due to objective outcome); imprecision (‐2): downgraded for wide confidence interval passing through line of no effect