Question · asked by 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries

Population
Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies); teeth apparently healthy or with suspected early caries. Studies intentionally including caries obviously into dentine or frank cavitation, or participants referred to secondary care for restorative treatment, were excluded. Target condition: early (non-cavitated enamel-only) coronal dental caries on occlusal, approximal, or smooth surfaces
Intervention
Analogue (conventional) radiographs
Comparison
Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
Outcome
Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted… · Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
Sensitivity 0.44 [0.38, 0.50]51 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries
2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
2018-12Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.