Question · asked by 1 review

Fluorescence-based devices vs Dental imaging (analog or digital radiographs): Difference in specificity

Population
Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)
Intervention
Fluorescence-based devices
Comparison
Dental imaging (analog or digital radiographs)
Outcome
Difference in specificity

Fluorescence and imaging had similar specificity in the fully within-person analysis.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Fluorescence-based devices vs Dental imaging (analog or digital radiographs)
Difference in specificity · 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 and imaging had similar specificity in the fully within-person analysis.
Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. (2021) All outcomes
Difference in specificity -0.03 [-0.14, 0.06]19 studies · 2849 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews.
2022 All outcomes
Not specifiedNot listedNot applicable

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.