Question · asked by 1 review
Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Green fluorescence devices (quantitative light-induced fluorescence, QLF; wavelength ~370-405 nm) vs Reference standard: histology, enhanced visual examination with or without radiographs, or excavation Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Children or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of having enamel caries (in vivo/clinical studies);… · Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | DOR 19.49 [9.01, 42.18] | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-05 | 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.