. 2020 Sep 1;21:26. doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-00323-7

Table 5.

Evidence profile: relationship between malocclusion and bullying

Patient or population: Children and adolescents Exposure/intervention: malocclusion Comparison: with normal occlusion Outcome: Bullying
4.953 (9 observational studies)	Not estimable	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW ^a,b,c	^aVery serious problems for “Risk of bias”: Seven, of the nine, studies included in the present systematic review were judged with non-solid methodologies, with results erroneously biased in a certain direction and/or any serious confounding or other distorting influences. ^bSerious problems for “Indirectness”: Shaw et al., Helm et al., Chikaod et al., Al-Bitar et al., and Rwakatema et al. applied self-report questionnaires to evaluate malocclusion, without clinical exam. ^CVery serious problems in “Other considerations”: Seven, of the nine, studies could have any serious confounding or other distorting influences.

Patient or population: Children and adolescents
Exposure/intervention: malocclusion
Comparison: with normal occlusion
Outcome: Bullying

No. of participants (studies)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Certainty

What happens

4.953

(9 observational studies)

Not estimable

⨁◯◯◯

VERY LOW ^a,b,c

^aVery serious problems for “Risk of bias”: Seven, of the nine, studies included in the present systematic review were judged with non-solid methodologies, with results erroneously biased in a certain direction and/or any serious confounding or other distorting influences.

^bSerious problems for “Indirectness”: Shaw et al., Helm et al., Chikaod et al., Al-Bitar et al., and Rwakatema et al. applied self-report questionnaires to evaluate malocclusion, without clinical exam.

^CVery serious problems in “Other considerations”: Seven, of the nine, studies could have any serious confounding or other distorting influences.

CI confidence interval