Imaging (analog or digital radiographs) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries
In the fully within-person analysis, radiographic imaging had a summary sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.62); ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Imaging (analog or digital radiographs) vs Reference standard (histology, operative excavation, or enhanced visual examination) Sensitivity for detecting enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies) · General dental practice; in vitro (extracted teeth) and in vivo (clinical) studies, Analysis 1: fully within-person comparison (studies evaluating >=3 index tests) In the fully within-person analysis, radiographic imaging had a summary sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.62); ungraded. Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. (2022) All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.48 [0.35, 0.62] | 19 studies · 2849 participants | GRADE not reported |
Imaging (analog or digital radiographs) vs Reference standard (histology, operative excavation, or enhanced visual examination) Sensitivity for detecting enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies) · General dental practice; in vitro (extracted teeth) and in vivo (clinical) studies, Analysis 2: network meta-analysis (all studies evaluating >=2 index tests) Radiographic imaging had the lowest summary sensitivity, 0.50 (95% CrI 0.40, 0.59), significantly lower than all other technologies; low certainty. Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. (2022) All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.50 [0.40, 0.59] | 64 studies · 24567 participants | Low |
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.