The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review of water fluoridation
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water. DESIGN: Search of 25 electronic databases and world wide web. Relevant journals hand searched; further information requested from authors. Inclusion criteria were a predefined hierarchy of evidence and objectives. Study validity was assessed with checklists. Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data, and assessed validity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth. Proportion of children without caries. Measure of effect was the difference in change in prevalence of caries from baseline to final examination in fluoridated compared with control areas. For potential adverse effects, all outcomes reported were used. RESULTS: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was -5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation
McDonagh, M. S., Whiting, P. F., Bradley, M. J., Cooper, J., Sutton, A. J., Chestnutt, I. G., Misso, K., Wilson, P. M., Treasure, E. T., & Kleijnen, J. (2000) · Cited by 114
Self-citationExplaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods
Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991030)18:20
Cited by
Five steps to conducting a systematic review
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107680309600304 · Cited by 1,873
Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries – a review
Frencken, J. E., Peters, M. C., Manton, D. J., Leal, S. C., Gordan, V. V., & Eden, E. (2012) · International Dental Journal · doi:10.1111/idj.12007 · Cited by 531
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Panel on Community Water Fluoridation (2015) · Public Health Reports® · doi:10.1177/003335491513000408 · Cited by 382
Effective use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries in the 21st century: the WHO approach
Petersen, P. E., & Lennon, M. A. (2004) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00175.x · Cited by 328
Cametti, M., & Rissanen, K. (2013) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c2cs35439j · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- McDonagh, M. S.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-10-07
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 7265
- Pages
- 855-859
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2109477199
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of water fluoridation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855
- The paper
- McDonagh, M. S. (2000). Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.