Question · asked by 1 review
Original development of CAMBRA (Caries Management by Risk Assessment) or CAT (Caries-risk Assessment Tool) multivariable models vs Not applicable: Model development with reported performance measures (per CHARMS)
- Population
- Individuals of any age at risk of caries increment
- Intervention
- Original development of CAMBRA (Caries Management by Risk Assessment) or CAT (Caries-risk Assessment Tool) multivariable models
- Comparison
- Not applicable
- Outcome
- Model development with reported performance measures (per CHARMS)
No original CAMBRA or CAT model-development studies reporting performance measures according to CHARMS were found (evidence gap); these tools appeared only as validated models within other studies.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Original development of CAMBRA (Caries Management by Risk Assessment) or CAT (Caries-risk Assessment Tool) multivariable models vs Not applicable Model development with reported performance measures (per CHARMS) · Individuals of any age at risk of caries increment · Oral health care; no geographical restriction, Model development studies No original CAMBRA or CAT model-development studies reporting performance measures according to CHARMS were found (evidence gap); these tools appeared only as validated models within other studies. Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal. (2023) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal. 2023 All outcomes | 23 April 2021 | 22 | 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.