Question · asked by 1 review
Radiographic examination (bitewing radiographs) vs Reference standard: histology: Specificity
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiographic examination (bitewing radiographs) vs Reference standard: histology Specificity · Extracted teeth of adults with restored approximal surfaces (in vitro studies; secondary root caries; Switzerland) Tests to detect and inform the diagnosis of root caries (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | 2 in vitro studies (59 root surfaces) using extracted, restored teeth and a histological reference standard investigated the accuracy of radiographs. Reported estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.40 to 0.63 and… | 2 studies | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tests to detect and inform the diagnosis of root caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-12 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
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.