Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination): Specificity for detection of enamel caries
- Population
- Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)
- Intervention
- Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection)
- Comparison
- Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)
- Outcome
- Specificity for detection of enamel caries
Visual or visual-tactile classification had a summary specificity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.73, 0.87) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual or visual-tactile classification (e.g., ICDAS, ERK) vs Reference standard (histology, operative excavation, or enhanced visual examination) Specificity for detecting enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies) · General dental practice; in vitro (extracted teeth) and in vivo (clinical) studies, Analysis 2: network meta-analysis (all studies evaluating >=2 index tests) Visual or visual-tactile classification had a summary specificity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.73, 0.87) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty. Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. (2022) All outcomes | Specificity 0.81 [0.73, 0.87] | 64 studies · 24567 participants | Low |
Visual or visual-tactile classification (e.g., ICDAS, ERK) vs Reference standard (histology, operative excavation, or enhanced visual examination) Specificity for detecting enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies) · General dental practice; in vitro (extracted teeth) and in vivo (clinical) studies, Analysis 1: fully within-person comparison (studies evaluating >=3 index tests) In the fully within-person analysis, visual classification had a summary specificity of 0.85 (95% CrI 0.74, 0.93); ungraded. Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. (2022) All outcomes | Specificity 0.85 [0.74, 0.93] | 19 studies · 2849 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. 2022 All outcomes | Not specified | Not listed | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in… · 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.