Question · asked by 1 review
Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Specificity
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) 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 | ECM (4 studies, 475 tooth surfaces): specificity ranged from 0.73 to 0.96. | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-04 | 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.