3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: The Sustainable Development Goal 15

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15) deals with protecting, restoring, and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managing forests, halting and reversing land degradation, combating desertification and halting biodiversity loss. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the current evidence on the association between SDG 15 and Early Childhood Caries (ECC).

          Methods

          This scoping review was reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Formal literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in March 2023 using key search terms. Studies with the criteria (in English, with full text available, addressing component of life on land, focusing on dental caries in humans, with results that can be extrapolated to control ECC in children less than 6 years of age) were included. Retrieved papers were summarised and a conceptual framework developed regarding the postulated link between SDG15 and ECC.

          Results

          Two publications met the inclusion criteria. Both publications were ecological studies relating environmental findings to aggregated health data at the area level. One study concluded that the eco-hydrogeological environment was associated with human health, including caries. The other reported that excessive calcium was associated with the presence of compounds increasing groundwater acidity that had an impact on human health, including caries. The two ecological studies were linked to SDG 15.1. It is also plausible that SDG 15.2 and SDG 15.3 may reduce the risk for food insecurity, unemployment, gender inequality, zoonotic infections, conflict and migration; while SDG 15.4 may improve access to medicinal plants such as anticariogenic chewing sticks and reduction in the consumption of cariogenic diets.

          Conclusions

          There are currently no studies to support an association between ECC and SDG15 although there are multiple plausible pathways for such an association that can be explored. There is also the possibility of synergistic actions between the elements of soil, water and air in ways that differentially affect the risk of ECC. Studies on the direct link between the SDG15 and ECC are needed. These studies will require the use of innovative research approaches.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

              Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                11 July 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 7
                : e0304523
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Early Childhood Caries Advocacy Group, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
                [2 ] Department of Child Dental Health, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
                [3 ] Oral Health Initiative, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria
                [4 ] Africa Oral Health Network, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
                [5 ] Dr. Gerald Niznick College of Dentistry, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
                [6 ] Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
                [7 ] Department of Orthodontics, Pediatric and Community Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
                [8 ] Preventive Dentistry Department, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid, Jordan
                [9 ] Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
                [10 ] Department of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Benghazi, Benghazi, Libya
                [11 ] Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Universidade Luterana Do Brasil, Canoas, Brazil
                [12 ] Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
                Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Dentistry, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9008-7730
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1670-497X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6574-9942
                Article
                PONE-D-23-43962
                10.1371/journal.pone.0304523
                11239008
                38990909
                d8be4f31-000a-407f-a1a6-50dd5efbab80
                © 2024 Foláyan et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 6 January 2024
                : 14 May 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, Pages: 14
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Bacterial Diseases
                Caries
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Physical Sciences
                Chemistry
                Chemical Compounds
                Fluorides
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Ecological Risk
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Ecological Risk
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oral Medicine
                Oral Health
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Environmental Impacts
                Desertification
                Physical Sciences
                Chemistry
                Analytical Chemistry
                Trace Elements
                Custom metadata
                All underlying data are in the paper.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article