Question · asked by 1 review

CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Specificity

Population
Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of children/adults (in vitro); target condition = non-cavitated coronal caries at the enamel threshold on occlusal surfaces. Studies intentionally including caries into dentine or frank cavitations were excluded.
Intervention
CarieScan Pro device
Comparison
Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
Outcome
Specificity

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)
Specificity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or… · Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
CarieScan Pro (3 studies, 244 tooth surfaces): specificity ranged from 0 to 1.00.3 studiesGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries
2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
2019-04Not listedNot assessed
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.