Question · asked by 1 review
Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard): Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level)
- Population
- Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
- Intervention
- Visual examination (VE)
- Comparison
- Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level)
Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.85 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.85 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | AUC 0.85 | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 13.26 (95% CI 1.44, 122.51) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | DOR 13.26 [1.44, 122.51] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.94, 0.999) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Specificity 0.99 [0.94, 0.999] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.09 (95% CI 0.04, 0.24) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.09 [0.04, 0.24] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes | Up to 31 December 2018 (English-language publications) | 36 | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Visual examination (VE) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · 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.