Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination: Intra-examiner reliability
Intra-examiner reliability ranged from kappa 0.52 to 1.00 across 6 studies; certainty not graded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual/clinical dental examination (reference standard) Intra-examiner reliability · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment · Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy (index test vs reference standard, in-vivo), In-vivo: dental clinics/hospitals, schools, and a juvenile detention facility (11 countries), Overall (studies reporting intra-examiner reliability; narrative synthesis) Intra-examiner reliability ranged from kappa 0.52 to 1.00 across 6 studies; certainty not graded. Teledentistry accuracy for caries diagnosis: a systematic review of in-vivo studies using extra-oral… (2024) All outcomes | Intra-examiner reliability (kappa) reported in 6 studies, ranging from 0.52 to 1.00. No pooled estimate. | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teledentistry accuracy for caries diagnosis: a systematic review of in-vivo studies using extra-oral photography methods. 2024 All outcomes | February 2023 (electronic searches conducted February 2023; literature coverage through December 2022; no date restriction applied) | 19 | 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.