Question · asked by 1 review
Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Diagnostic odds ratio (overall test accuracy)
- 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
- Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
- Outcome
- Diagnostic odds ratio (overall test accuracy)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs) Diagnostic odds ratio (overall test accuracy) · 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 | Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 15.65 [1.43, 171.15] | 7 studies | Very low |
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 | Not listed | Not 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.