Fluorescence-based devices vs Dental imaging (analog or digital radiographs): Difference in sensitivity
Fluorescence had higher sensitivity than imaging in the fully within-person analysis.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluorescence-based devices vs Dental imaging (analog or digital radiographs) Difference in sensitivity · Children or adults asymptomatic or suspected of enamel caries; extracted teeth · Clinical studies and in vitro extracted teeth, Analysis 1: fully within-person comparison Fluorescence had higher sensitivity than imaging in the fully within-person analysis. Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. (2021) All outcomes | Difference in sensitivity 0.23 [0.05, 0.39] | 19 studies · 2849 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. 2022 All outcomes | Not specified | list not extracted yet | 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.