Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,087 questions · 2,360 findings · 390 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 224 · 9.5%GRADE not reported 603 · 25.6%Very low 555 · 23.5%Low 548 · 23.2%Moderate 312 · 13.2%High 118 · 5%

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

2 findings from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Permanent dentition
Permanent dentition (4 studies): specificity ranged from 0.73 to 1.00.
4 studies
GRADE not reported
Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Primary dentition
Primary dentition (3 studies): specificity ranged from 0 to 0.92.
3 studies
GRADE not reported

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
SoF findings (HSROC; no summary operating point reported): 'ECM: sensitivity from 0.61 to 0.98 ... CarieScan Pro: sensitivity from 0.55 to 0.91'. Across all 7 studies (8 datasets), covering 719 tooth surfaces or sites…
7 studies
Very low

Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Diagnostic accuracy: in vitro versus in vivo comparison · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…

1 finding from 1 review

Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Study setting (in vitro vs in vivo)
Pre-specified in vitro versus in vivo comparison was not completed because 49 of the 60 histology studies were in vitro; a sensitivity analysis removing the in vivo studies confirmed a minimal change to summary…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
ECM (4 studies, 475 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.98 (0.61-0.65 in three studies; 0.98 in the most recent ECM IV study). No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1,…
4 studies
GRADE not reported

Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) for enamel caries, not meta-analyzed · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…

1 finding from 1 review

Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Smooth surface
Smooth surfaces reported by 2 datasets (Nakagawa 2013; Shi 2000) but excluded from the surface meta-analysis owing to sparsity; no summary sensitivity or specificity estimated.
2 studies
GRADE not reported

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
SoF findings (HSROC; no summary operating point reported): 'ECM: specificity from 0.73 to 0.96 ... CarieScan Pro: specificity from 0 to 1.00'. Across all 7 studies (8 datasets), covering 719 tooth surfaces or sites (no…
7 studies
Very low

Other visual classification systems (unspecified or unique systems, e.g. Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Sensitivity for detection of 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

Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
Sensitivity 0.81 [0.65, 0.91]
16 studies
GRADE not reported

Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Sensitivity for detection of 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

Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
Sensitivity 0.88 [0.81, 0.92]
36 studies
GRADE not reported

Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Diagnostic accuracy in previously restored teeth (secondary caries) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…

1 finding from 1 review

Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Previously restored teeth (secondary caries)
Only one study (Kim 2017) intentionally included restored teeth in its sample; the pre-specified secondary-caries subgroup analysis could not be performed, no summary estimate reported.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
ECM (4 studies, 475 tooth surfaces): specificity ranged from 0.73 to 0.96.
4 studies
GRADE not reported

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (overall test accuracy) · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 15.65 [1.43, 171.15]
7 studies
Very low

CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
CarieScan Pro (3 studies, 244 tooth surfaces): specificity ranged from 0 to 1.00.
3 studies
GRADE not reported

Other visual classification systems (unspecified or unique systems, e.g. Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Specificity for detection of 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

Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
Specificity 0.84 [0.73, 0.91]
16 studies
GRADE not reported

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

Disease-free survival · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens showed no clear difference in disease‐free survival (DFS)median compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.93 [0.86, 1.01]
8 studies · 13547 participants
Moderate

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

DFS: hormone receptor‐positivemedian · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens showed no clear difference in DFS: hormone receptor‐positivemedian compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 1.03 [0.91, 1.17]
5 studies · 5604 participants
Moderate

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

DFS: hormone receptor‐negativemedian · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens probably leads to lower DFS: hormone receptor‐negativemedian compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.76 [0.65, 0.88]
7 studies · 2879 participants
Moderate

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

Overall survival: Median length of · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens probably leads to lower overall survival (OS)median compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.89 [0.81, 0.98]
8 studies · 13547 participants
Moderate

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

Febrile neutropenia · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens probably leads to lower febrile neutropenia compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.55 [0.47, 0.64]
5 studies · 8086 participants
Moderate

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

Diarrhoea · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens probably leads to higher diarrhoea compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 2.46 [2.01, 3.01]
8 studies · 11207 participants
Moderate

Capecitabine‐containing regimens vs non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy

Hand‐foot syndrome · patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine‐containing regimens probably leads to higher hand‐foot syndrome compared with non‐capecitabine‐containing regimens or no chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Capecitabine for hormone receptor‐positive versus hormone receptor‐negative breast cancer 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 13.6 [10.65, 17.37]
8 studies · 11207 participants
Moderate