Question · asked by 1 review
Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: histology: Specificity
- Population
- Extracted molar teeth of adults with resin composite approximal restorations (in vitro; secondary root caries; Switzerland)
- Intervention
- Visual examination (VE)
- Comparison
- Reference standard: histology
- Outcome
- Specificity
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual examination vs Reference standard: histology Specificity · Extracted molar teeth of adults with resin composite approximal restorations (in vitro; secondary root caries;… Tests to detect and inform the diagnosis of root caries (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | Specificity 0.38 [0.14, 0.68] | 1 study | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tests to detect and inform the diagnosis of root caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-12 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.