Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyse

Does oral health influence school performance and school attendance? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To examine the evidence on the influence of oral health status on school performance and school attendance in children and adolescents. DESIGN: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA included epidemiological studies that assessed concomitantly oral health measures, participants' school performance and/or school attendance. Electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and LILACS. Studies published up to May 2018 in any language were eligible. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates between oral health measures and school performance and school attendance. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Of them, fifteen studies were used for the meta-analyses. Most studies were assessed as moderate quality. Children with one or more decayed teeth had higher probability of poor school performance (OR = 1.44 95%CI: 1.24-1.64) and poor school attendance (OR = 1.57 95%CI: 1.08-2.05) than caries-free children. Poor parent's perception of child's oral health increased the odds of worse school performance (OR = 1.51 95%CI: 1.10-1.92) and poor school attendance (OR = 1.35 95%CI: 1.14-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with dental caries and those reporting worse oral health experience poor school performance and poor school attendance

Treatment Efficacy, Clinical Utility, and Cost-Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Treatments for Persistent Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To review the current literature on the treatment efficacy, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) for patients suffering from persistent (nonspecific) lower back pain (LBP) in relation to pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life, and work ability/sick leave. Methods: We carried out a systematic search of Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for English- and German-language literature published between January 2010 and July 2017. Study selection consisted of exclusion and inclusion phases. After screening for duplication, studies were excluded on the basis of criteria covering study design, number of participants, language of publication, and provision of information about the intervention. All the remaining articles dealing with the efficacy, utility, or cost-effectiveness of intensive (more than 25 hours per week) MBR encompassing at least 3 health domains and cognitive behavioral therapy–based psychological education were included. Results: The search retrieved 1199 publications of which 1116 were duplicates or met the exclusion criteria. Seventy of the remaining 83 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria; thus 13 studies were reviewed. All studies reporting changes in pain intensity or disability over 12 months after MBR reported moderate effect sizes and/or p-values for both outcomes. The effects on health-related quality of life were mixed, but MBR substantially reduced costs. Overall MBR produced an enduring improvement in work ability despite controversy and variable results. Conclusions: MBR is an effective treatment for nonspecific LBP, but there is room for improvement in cost-effectiveness and impact on sick leave, where the evidence was less compelling

A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity

Objectives: The economic burden of multimorbidity is considerable. This review analyzed the methods of cost-of-illness (COI) studies and summarized the economic outcomes of multimorbidity. Methods: A systematic review (2000–2016) was performed, which was registered with Prospero, reported according to PRISMA, and used a quality checklist adapted for COI studies. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed COI studies on multimorbidity, whereas the exclusion criterion was studies focusing on an index disease. Extracted data included the definition, measure, and prevalence of multimorbidity; the number of included health conditions; the age of study population; the variables used in the COI methodology; the percentage of multimorbidity vs. total costs; and the average costs per capita. Results: Among the 26 included articles, 14 defined multimorbidity as a simple count of 2 or more conditions. Methodologies used to derive the costs were markedly different. Given different healthcare systems, OOP payments of multimorbidity varied across countries. In the 17 and 12 studies with cut-offs of ≥2 and ≥3 conditions, respectively, the ratios of multimorbidity to non-multimorbidity costs ranged from 2–16 to 2–10. Among the ten studies that provided cost breakdowns, studies with and without a societal perspective attributed the largest percentage of multimorbidity costs to social care and inpatient care/medicine, respectively. Conclusion: Multimorbidity was associated with considerable economic burden. Synthesising the cost of multimorbidity was challenging due to multiple definitions of multimorbidity and heterogeneity in COI methods. Count method was most popular to define multimorbidity. There is consistent evidence that multimorbidity was associated with higher costs