Cariogram multivariable caries-risk model (including modified/reduced-predictor versions) vs Alternative prediction model(s) within the same study, or no formal comparator (models compared descriptively; no between-model statistical test): Predictive performance of the Cariogram for caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+)
Modified Cariogram models showed modest positive likelihood ratios (LR+ ~1.1-3.8) for predicting caries increment, generally below the useful threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Cariogram multivariable caries-risk model (including modified/reduced-predictor versions) vs Alternative prediction model(s) within the same study, or no formal comparator (models compared descriptively; no between-model statistical test) Predictive performance of the Cariogram for caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) · Children/adolescents (coronal caries) and older adults (root caries); populations from areas with varying caries risk · Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years), Oral health care; children/adolescents and older adults; multiple countries, Model validation studies Modified Cariogram models showed modest positive likelihood ratios (LR+ ~1.1-3.8) for predicting caries increment, generally below the useful threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal. (2023) All outcomes | Six validation studies (5 coronal, 1 root) evaluated modified Cariogram models (not the original model per se). Review-stated LR+ range 1.1-3.8 (with one exception). LR+ was not substantially changed by excluding the… | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal. 2023 All outcomes | 23 April 2021 | 22 | 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.