Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard: detection of occlusal caries
QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.80 for occlusal caries (permanent dentition, in vivo).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs reference standard detection of occlusal caries · human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions · in vivo, permanent dentition QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.80 for occlusal caries (permanent dentition, in vivo). Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and… (2025) All outcomes | Specificity 0.80 | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs reference standard detection of occlusal caries · human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions · in vivo, all dentitions QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.82 for occlusal caries (all dentitions, in vivo). Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and… (2025) All outcomes | Specificity 0.82 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a systematic review and… 2025 All outcomes | May 2023 | 28 | Not applicable |
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.