Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

416 questions · 471 findings · 75 reviews

No studies found 54 · 11.5%GRADE not reported 133 · 28.2%Very low 125 · 26.5%Low 103 · 21.9%Moderate 40 · 8.5%High 16 · 3.4%

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Enhanced visual examination reference standard (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Blue fluorescence devices (VistaProof, SoproLife, Spectra; wavelength 400-450 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 24 / Figure 25; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 3 datasets, 1027 tooth sites.
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity at fixed median specificity 0.78 (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Tafamidis vs placebo

Number of participants experiencing at least one severe adverse event · people with early‐stage TTR‐FAP

It is very uncertain whether tafamidis changes number of participants experiencing at least one severe adverse event compared with placebo (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Mortality In the early postoperative period (≤ 30 days) · participants with hydrocephalus
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Mortality Beyond the early postoperative period (> 30 days) · participants with hydrocephalus
1 finding from 1 review

Combined index test: visual examination + radiograph + DIAGNOdent (Alomari 2015) vs Reference standard: histology

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Blue fluorescence devices (VistaProof, SoproLife, Spectra; wavelength 400-450 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: High dentine-caries prevalence (>=35%) (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Primary dentition (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

MidWest (DENTSPLY; red fluorescence, red/green light and sound signal) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 4 datasets, 356 tooth sites.
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Multiple sites per tooth (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review