DATA: Studies assessing OHRQoL amongst patients aged ≥18 years, before and after rehabilitation with RPDs of any type and design, were included. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effect model.

SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, up to March 29, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION AND RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible and eight were included in the meta-analysis. The studies had moderate to serious risk of bias. There was a very low level of certainty that OHRQoL, as measured using OHIP-14, improved 3 months after RPDs were fitted (222 participants, MD: -12.0, 95% CI: -16.1, -7.9, p<0.001) and after 6 months (101 participants, MD: -10.5, 95% CI: -16.4, -4.6, p<0.001). At 12 months post-treatment, RPD rehabilitation did not result in statistically significant improvement in OHIP-14 scores (62 participants, MD: -12.7, 95% CI: -26.1, 0.6, p = 0.06). However, the assessment using OHIP-49 at 12 months showed significant improvement (87 participants, MD: -34.8, 95% CI: -41.9, -27.7, p<0.001), with low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence available, this review found that RPD rehabilitation appear to improve OHRQoL in the short term up to 6 months, with a very low level of certainty. The long-term effect of RPD treatment on OHRQoL after 12 months is inconclusive. There is currently insufficient evidence on the effect of RPD treatment on OHRQoL. This review highlights the need for more and better quality studies.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Data on RPD outcomes are summarised, aiding clinicians in providing evidence-based patient-centred care that matches patients' needs and expectations. Recommendations for future research were also highlighted.

METHODS: Of these 279 variants, data were obtained for 228 from GWAS conducted within the Asian Breast Cancer Consortium (24,206 cases and 24,775 controls) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry). Meta-analyses were conducted to combine the results from these two datasets.

METHODS: The development data set comprised 138,309 women from 17 case-control studies. PRSs were generated using a clumping and thresholding method, lasso penalized regression, an Empirical Bayes approach, a Bayesian polygenic prediction approach, or linear combinations of multiple PRSs. These PRSs were evaluated in 89,898 women from 3 prospective studies (1592 incident cases).

RESULTS: The best performing PRS (genome-wide set of single-nucleotide variations [formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism]) had a hazard ratio per unit SD of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.46-1.80) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.635 (95% CI = 0.622-0.649). Combined Asian and European PRSs (333 single-nucleotide variations) had a hazard ratio per SD of 1.53 (95% CI = 1.37-1.71) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.621 (95% CI = 0.608-0.635). The distribution of the latter PRS was different across ethnic subgroups, confirming the importance of population-specific calibration for valid estimation of breast cancer risk.