Question · asked by 1 review
Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation): Diagnostic accuracy: in vitro versus in vivo comparison
- Population
- Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies); teeth apparently healthy or with suspected early caries. Studies intentionally including caries obviously into dentine or frank cavitation, or participants referred to secondary care for restorative treatment, were excluded. Target condition: early (non-cavitated enamel-only) coronal dental caries on occlusal, approximal, or smooth surfaces
- Intervention
- Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified)
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy: in vitro versus in vivo comparison
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation) Diagnostic accuracy: in vitro versus in vivo comparison · Asymptomatic children or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children… · Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies), Study setting (in vitro vs in vivo) Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Pre-specified in vitro versus in vivo comparison was not completed because 49 of the 60 histology studies were in vitro; a sensitivity analysis removing the in vivo studies confirmed a minimal change to summary… | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2020-04 | 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.