Tabari 2000.
| Methods |
FLUOROSIS STUDY Country of study: UK Geographic location: Northumberland and Newcastle upon Tyne Year of study: 1998 Year of change in fluoridation status: 1969 Study design: cross‐sectional |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: parental consent; lifetime residency Exclusion criteria: not stated Ethnicity: not stated Other sources of fluoride: data on the use of fluoride drops and tablets collected but not presented. Data on toothbrushing habit/frequency presented in detail and appeared to be similar in F and non‐F areas Social class: the subjects from Newcastle tended to reside in more underprivileged areas than those in Northumberland. The mean Jarman UPA8 score was 16.3 (SD = 19.1) for subjects in Newcastle and 7.3 (SD = 15.0) for Northumberland (P value < 0.001). However, the authors were reported to have chosen schools to provide children from a spectrum of SES backgrounds Residential history: lifetime residents Other confounding factors: not stated |
|
| Interventions | Group 1: 1 ppm (artificial fluoridation) Group 2: 0.1 ppm (natural fluoridation) | |
| Outcomes | Dental fluorosis (TF Index); Age at assessment: 8‐9 years |
|
| Funding | Not stated | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Sampling | Unclear risk | In Newcastle and Northumberland, 14 and 15 schools respectively were chosen. However, there was insufficient information on how the selection was done |
| Confounding | High risk | There was a significant difference in measure of deprivation between the 2 study areas |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Assessment was by the use of photographs in order to allow examination of teeth of children without the examiner being aware of which area the child was from |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | In the 2 groups, 78% and 79% of the eligible children had complete data. It was not clear whether those whose photographs were unacceptable (examined but not analysed) were systematically different from those who remained in the study |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Outcome of interested reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other apparent bias |