Gap finder
Search review questions
Each row is one question a systematic review asked: who, what, compared with what, and which outcome, with the effect it found and how certain that is. Words match anywhere in the field.
555 questions in 21 reviews · intervention: Caries detection/diagnosis · outcome domain: Diagnostic accuracy
current versionsNo studies 19 · 3.4%Ungraded 489 · 88.1%Very low 17 · 3.1%Low 23 · 4.1%Moderate 7 · 1.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Intervention categories, outcome domains and clusters are a proposed key pending human validation. Clear all filters
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, DOR) - not pooled · Permanent teeth (occlusal and smooth surfaces), with suspected caries lesions · Initial and more advanced caries lesions thresholds Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) | Only three articles using QLF were included (all permanent teeth); no meta-analysis could be performed. Individual studies reported high sensitivity or high specificity depending on threshold and surface. | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Fluorescence camera (FC; VistaProof) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · Initial caries lesions threshold Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) | Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); accuracy similar among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=0%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided… | NR | Ungraded |
Fluorescence camera (FC; VistaProof) vs Reference standard (histological examination, operative intervention, or other/visual examination) Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions · More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) | Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); pooled DOR for FC among the higher values, exceeding LFpen. Heterogeneity I2=17%. Numeric pooled values not… | NR | Ungraded |
Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces · More advanced caries lesion threshold, FC, occlusal, permanent teeth Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) | Sensitivity 0.876 [0.826, 0.916] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces · More advanced caries lesion threshold, FC, occlusal, primary teeth Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of… (2013) | Sensitivity 0.850 [0.702, 0.943] | 2 studies | Ungraded |