Question · asked by 1 review
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening): Advanced proximal carious lesions
- Population
- Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical)
- Intervention
- Radiographic caries detection
- Comparison
- Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening)
- Outcome
- Advanced proximal carious lesions
Pooled sensitivity for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.444 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.51).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 8 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · All included studies, Conventional meta-analysis (all studies) Pooled sensitivity for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.444 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.51). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Sensitivity 44.4 [38, 51] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · All included studies, Conventional meta-analysis (all studies) Pooled negative lr for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.58 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.65). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Negative LR 0.58 [0.52, 0.65] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · All included studies, Conventional meta-analysis (all studies) Pooled positive lr for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 9.82 (95% CI 7.3 to 13.3). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Positive LR 9.82 [7.3, 13.3] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · Egypt public health clinic, Tailored meta-analysis (Egypt) Pooled specificity for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.955 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.97). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Specificity 95.5 [94, 97] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · Egypt public health clinic, Tailored meta-analysis (Egypt) Pooled negative lr for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.58 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.65). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Negative LR 0.58 [0.52, 0.65] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · All included studies, Conventional meta-analysis (all studies) Pooled specificity for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.955 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.97). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Specificity 95.5 [94, 97] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · Egypt public health clinic, Tailored meta-analysis (Egypt) Pooled sensitivity for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 0.444 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.51). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Sensitivity 44.4 [38, 51] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Radiographic caries detection vs Reference standard (often histological; also invasive opening) Advanced proximal carious lesions · Permanent molar surfaces in diagnostic accuracy studies (mostly in vitro; clinical) · Egypt public health clinic, Tailored meta-analysis (Egypt) Pooled positive lr for radiographic detection of advanced proximal lesions was 9.82 (95% CI 7.3 to 13.3). Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and… (2018) All outcomes | Positive LR 9.82 [7.3, 13.3] | 22 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visual and radiographic caries detection: a tailored meta-analysis for two different settings, Egypt and Germany. 2018 All outcomes | Not specified (data reused from two source systematic reviews, Gimenez 2015 and Schwendicke 2015) | 2 | Not applicable |
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.