Question · asked by 1 review
Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histological validation or cavity/lesion opening; advanced = cavitated/dentin-involved lesions, all = enamel-confined initial lesions also counted): PPV for detecting all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries
- Population
- Occlusal surfaces of permanent molars (demonstrated in 12-14 year-olds; underlying diagnostic accuracy studies, mostly in vitro)
- Intervention
- Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection)
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histological validation or cavity/lesion opening; advanced = cavitated/dentin-involved lesions, all = enamel-confined initial lesions also counted)
- Outcome
- PPV for detecting all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries
In the German private-practice setting, the positive predictive value of visual detection for all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries was 82.0% at an assumed prevalence of 45.0% (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histological validation or cavity/lesion opening; advanced = cavitated/dentin-involved lesions, all = enamel-confined initial lesions also counted) PPV for detecting all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries · Occlusal surfaces of permanent molars (demonstrated in 12-14 year-olds; underlying diagnostic accuracy studies, mostly… · Private practice, rural northern Germany, Tailored to Germany In the German private-practice setting, the positive predictive value of visual detection for all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries was 82.0% at an assumed prevalence of 45.0% (ungraded). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | PPV 82.0 | 12 studies | GRADE not reported |
Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histological validation or cavity/lesion opening; advanced = cavitated/dentin-involved lesions, all = enamel-confined initial lesions also counted) PPV for detecting all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries · Occlusal surfaces of permanent molars (demonstrated in 12-14 year-olds; underlying diagnostic accuracy studies, mostly… · Public health clinic, Giza (Cairo), Egypt, Tailored to Egypt In the Egyptian public health clinic setting, the positive predictive value of visual detection for all (initial and advanced) occlusal caries was 35.6% at an assumed prevalence of 12.9% (ungraded). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | PPV 35.6 | 51 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and Germany. 2018 All outcomes | Not specified (data reused from two source systematic reviews, Gimenez 2015 and Schwendicke 2015) | 2 | Not applicable |
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.