Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of Findings Table (SoF) for GRADE statement of included studies

From: Comparison of rapid versus slow maxillary expansion on patient-reported outcome measures in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes

Mean difference (MD) or Risk ratio (RR) (95% CI)

Number of participants (studies)

Certainty of evidence (GRADE)

Key messages in simple terms

Presence of pain in week 1

2.02

[0.55 to 7.49] (RR)

157 subjects (2 RCTs)

⊕○○○a,b,c

Very Low

There is very low evidence that SME appliance results in little or no difference in presence of pain compared to RME appliance (during the first week of screw activation)

VAS Pain week 1

0.86

[0.47 to 1.26] (MD)

157 subjects (2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕○a

Moderate

The use of an SME appliance probably is associated with less pain intensity during the first week compared to RME appliance

VAS Pain week 2

0.70

[− 0.24 to 1.64] (MD)

56 subjects

(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕○c

Moderate

There is probably no difference between RME and SME treatment in pain intensity during the second week

VAS Pain week 3

0.20

[− 0.25 to 0.65] (MD)

56 subjects

(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕○c

Moderate

There is probably no difference between RME and SME treatment in pain intensity during the third week

VAS Pain week 4

0.30

[− 0.17 to 0.77] (MD)

56 subjects

(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕ ○c

Moderate

There is probably no difference between RME and SME treatment in pain intensity during the fourth week

Presence of difficulty in speaking week 1

0.95

[0.85 to 1.06] (RR)

157 subjects (2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕ ○a

Moderate

There is probably no difference in difficulty of speaking between RME and SME groups

Presence of difficulty in swallowing week 1

0.93

[0.78 to 1.12] (RR)

101 subjects (1 RCTs)

⊕⊕○○a,c

Low

There is low evidence of no difference in difficulty of speaking between RME and SME groups

Hypersalivation week 1

1.03

[0.84 to 1.24] (RR)

101 subjects (1 RCTs)

⊕⊕○○a,c

Low

There is low evidence of the absence of difference in hypersalivation in the two groups during the first week of treatment

VAS difficulty in hygiene week 1

0.30

[− 1.14 to 1.74] (MD)

56 subjects

(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕○c

Moderate

There is probably no difference between the two groups in difficulty of expander hygiene

Patient satisfaction

0.00

[− 0.92 to 0.92] (MD)

56 subjects

(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕○c

Moderate

The use of RME and SME appliance probably do not differ in patient satisfaction

Parent satisfaction

0.10

[− 0.56 to 0.76] (MD)

56 subjects

(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕○c

Moderate

The use of RME and SME appliance probably do not differ in parent satisfaction

  1. Participants: growing patients with constricted maxilla
  2. Intervention: treatment with conventional fixed jackscrew expanders to obtain RME
  3. Comparison: treatment with slow maxillary expansion (SME) achieved with fixed expanders
  4. Outcome: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
  5. Study: RCTs
  6. 95% CI: 95% confidence interval
  7. GRADE: Evidence grades. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
  8. Domains that lower the level of evidence:
  9. aRoB (result from a study with risk of bias with some concerns)
  10. bInconsistency: high statistical heterogeneity across studies
  11. cImprecision: wide confidence interval or only one study