Selwitz 1995.
| Methods |
FLUOROSIS STUDY Country of study: USA Geographic location: Kewanee (optimal), Monmouth (2 x optimal), Abingdon, Elmwood (3 x optimal), Bushneell, Ipava, Table Grove (4 x optimal), Illinois Year of study: 1980 Year study ended: 1990 Year of change in fluoridation status: unclear Study design: repeated cross‐sectional |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: children aged 8‐10 years and 14‐16 years; written parental consent; lifetime residents of study areas; continuous use of community water supply Exclusion criteria: none stated Other sources of fluoride: not stated Social class: not stated Ethnicity: not stated Residential history: lifetime residents Other confounding factors: not stated |
|
| Interventions | Unclear whether all was natural fluoridation, parts of the optimally fluoridated area may have been artificially adjusted Group 1: 4 ppm Group 2: 3 ppm Group 3: 2 ppm Group 4: 1 ppm |
|
| Outcomes | Dental fluorosis (% fluorosed surfaces (TSIF); caries data also evaluated within the study but excluded from review due to study design Age at assessment: 8‐10 years and 13‐15 years |
|
| Funding | Not stated | |
| Notes | Data extracted from Selwitz 1995 differs from that presented in CRD review | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Sampling | Unclear risk | There was insufficient detail reported to determine how selection took place. Reference was made to a previous study (Leverett 1986) for further information on sampling, however this study also reported insufficient information on sampling |
| Confounding | High risk | Did not account for the use of fluoride from other sources or SES |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Insufficient information |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Data presented for all participants |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Data not in suitable format for analysis |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other apparent bias |