Question · asked by 1 review
Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Relative DOR by setting (FC, advanced, occlusal permanent)
- Population
- Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
- Intervention
- Fluorescence camera (FC)
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
- Outcome
- Relative DOR by setting (FC, advanced, occlusal permanent)
No significant setting difference for FC (RDOR 2.96, 0.36 to 24.45).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluorescence camera (FC; VistaProof) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Relative DOR by setting (FC, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold, Meta-regression across clinical and laboratory studies, Laboratory using frozen teeth vs clinical (reference) No significant setting difference for FC (RDOR 2.96, 0.36 to 24.45). Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) All outcomes | RDOR 2.96 [0.36, 24.45] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Fluorescence camera (FC; VistaProof) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Relative DOR by setting (FC, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold, Meta-regression across clinical and laboratory studies, Laboratory vs clinical (reference) No significant setting difference for FC (RDOR 3.83, 0.53 to 27.73). Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) All outcomes | RDOR 3.83 [0.53, 27.73] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomes | 19 June 2012 | 75 | 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.