Question · asked by 1 review
Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent)
- Population
- Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
- Intervention
- Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent)
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
- Outcome
- Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent)
No significant difference vs histological for LF at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.62, 0.15 to 2.46).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold, Meta-regression across reference-standard types, Other reference standard vs histological (reference) No significant difference vs histological for LF at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.62, 0.15 to 2.46). Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) All outcomes | RDOR 0.62 [0.15, 2.46] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold, Meta-regression across reference-standard types, Operative intervention vs histological (reference) LF performed significantly better with operative-intervention reference standard than with histological at the advanced threshold (RDOR 3.01, 1.26 to 7.20). Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) All outcomes | RDOR 3.01 [1.26, 7.20] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomes | 19 June 2012 | 75 | 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.