Question · asked by 1 review
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC)
- Population
- Permanent teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
- Intervention
- Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen)
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC)
Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pen-type laser fluorescence (LFpen; DIAGNOdent pen) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold, Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo) Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used). Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) All outcomes | Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds. Heterogeneity I2=84%. Numeric pooled values not available in the… | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Pen-type laser fluorescence (LFpen; DIAGNOdent pen) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · Initial caries lesions threshold, Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo) Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; similar values at both thresholds; heterogeneity I2=93%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used). Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) All outcomes | Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; similar values at both thresholds. Heterogeneity I2=93%. Numeric pooled… | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomes | 19 June 2012 | 75 | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination) · Primary teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · 1 review
- Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · 1 review
- Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · 1 review
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.