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): Sensitivity for detecting advanced occlusal caries
In the meta-analysis tailored to Germany, pooled sensitivity of visual detection for advanced occlusal caries was 43.7% (95% CI 37 to 51) (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| 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) Sensitivity for detecting 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 meta-analysis tailored to Germany, pooled sensitivity of visual detection for advanced occlusal caries was 43.7% (95% CI 37 to 51) (ungraded). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Sensitivity 43.7 [37, 51] | 50 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) Sensitivity for detecting advanced occlusal caries · Occlusal surfaces of permanent molars (demonstrated in 12-14 year-olds; underlying diagnostic accuracy studies, mostly… · Conventional meta-analysis (all studies) In the conventional (all-studies) meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity of visual detection for advanced occlusal caries was 64.6% (95% CI 57 to 71) (ungraded). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Sensitivity 64.6 [57, 71] | 94 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) Sensitivity for detecting 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 meta-analysis tailored to Egypt, pooled sensitivity of visual detection for advanced occlusal caries was 75.1% (95% CI 70 to 81) (ungraded). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Sensitivity 75.1 [70, 81] | 55 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 |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.