Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 2 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Electrical conductance or impedance vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Electrical conductance or impedance had a summary sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CrI 0.66, 0.92) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. 2022 All outcomes
General dental practice; in vitro (extracted teeth) and in vivo (clinical) studies · Analysis 2: network meta-analysis (all studies evaluating >=2 index tests)
Sensitivity 0.83 [0.66, 0.92]
64 studies · 24567 participants
Low

Electrical conductance or impedance vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Electrical conductance or impedance had a summary specificity of 0.72 (95% CrI 0.44, 0.89) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews. 2022 All outcomes
General dental practice; in vitro (extracted teeth) and in vivo (clinical) studies · Analysis 2: network meta-analysis (all studies evaluating >=2 index tests)
Specificity 0.72 [0.44, 0.89]
64 studies · 24567 participants
Low