Non-Cochrane · prognostic · PM37904228
Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal.
Havsed Kristian, Hänsel Petersson Gunnel, Isberg Per-Erik, et al. · Systematic reviews · 2023 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02298-y
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
203
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
1
Included studies
22
linked below
No studies 1 · 0.5%Ungraded 202 · 99.5%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%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.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Individuals of all ages, sex and ethnicity, with caries defined at baseline and follow-up on an individual basis (PICOTS Participants) | 21 studies: children/adolescents (aged 2-19) for coronal caries and adults (aged 52-95) for root caries; sample sizes 21-1576 (n=21 studies) |
| Intervention | A multivariable prediction model expressing caries increment as a function of at least 3 predictors, described in sufficient detail to allow calculation of model performance | 66 multivariable prediction models across 21 studies: model development in 11 studies (30 models: 23 coronal, 6 root, 1 coronal-and-root); external validation in 10 studies (36 models: 31 coronal, 5 root); >150 candidate predictors, 31 remaining in final coronal-caries models (n=66 models) |
| Comparison | Additional prediction model(s) included within the study (comparator) | Comparisons were within-study between alternative models (e.g. Cariogram variants with/without salivary predictors); no formal between-model statistical comparison performed |
| Outcomes | Caries increment prediction (onset: sound to lesion; or progression), with model performance reported as calibration, discrimination (AUC) and classification measures (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR-); AUC alone not accepted | Model performance recalculated by review authors as LR+ (range 0.78-10.3) and LR- (range 0.0-1.1); AUC reported in 6 development and 12 validation studies; only 5 models reached LR+>=5 (4 coronal, 1 root); calibration reported in 1 study |
| Study designs | Oral health care, no restriction to geographical location | Oral health care across 11 countries; school, clinical and community settings |
| Timing | Follow-up time >=1 year | Follow-up 1-5 years |
Search date: 23 April 2021. Databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed); Web of Science (all citation databases); Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews)
Questions and results
Multivariable caries prediction model vs Additional prediction model(s)
Population: Individuals of all ages
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.79 [0.69, 0.89] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.44 [0.35, 0.56] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.34, 2.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.65, 2.28] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 4.37 [3.80, 5.04] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2002 [18]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.74 [0.63, 0.87] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.71 [2.18, 3.38] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model development studies Population: Children and adolescents (aged 2-19) at risk of coronal caries increment (caries onset or progression) Some developmental coronal-caries models achieved useful negative likelihood ratios (LR-<=0.20), but performance varied widely; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [13-20]; Results 'Performance of development and validation models'; Abstract · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Per-model LR- (Table 2) for the 8 development studies ranged roughly 0.11-0.94 (e.g. Angulo 0.94, Demers 0.14-0.40, Gao 2010 0.11-0.30). Overall across all 66 models LR- ranged 0.0-1.1; LR-<=0.20… | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.44 [0.35, 0.56] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.33 [0.25, 0.45] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.80 [0.71, 0.89] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.44 [0.35, 0.56] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.47 [2.89, 4.16] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Demers,1992 [14]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.14 [0.07, 0.28] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 10 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.05 [1.39, 3.02] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.49 [0.42, 0.58] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 9 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.00 [1.35, 2.95] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.34, 2.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.36 [0.26, 0.50] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Angulo,1995 [13]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.94 [0.74, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.33 [0.24, 0.44] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Angulo,1995 [13]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.36 [0.43, 4.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.06 [2.73, 3.43] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.48 [1.20, 1.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 9.04 [7.41, 11.03] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.22 [0.19, 0.22] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.15 [1.96, 2.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.87 [1.49, 2.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.67 [0.58, 0.77] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Sánchez-Pérez,2009 [20]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.27 [0.16, 0.46] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.88 [3.19, 4.71] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 9 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.31 [0.22, 0.43] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 11 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.41 [0.30, 0.56] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.87 [1.49, 2.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.30 [0.26, 0.36] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Demers,1992 [14]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.31 [1.15, 1.50] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.47 [0.40, 0.55] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.69 [3.05, 4.45] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.18 [0.16, 0.22] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.11 [0.08, 0.13] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Demers,1992 [14]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.40 [0.26, 0.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.36 [0.26, 0.50] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model validation studies Population: Children and adolescents (aged 2-19) at risk of coronal caries increment (caries onset or progression) Most externally validated coronal-caries models showed modest LR+ (<5); only Campus 2012 and Gao 2013 NUS-CRA reached the useful threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [19,24-32]; Results 'Performance of development and validation models'; Abstract · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Per-model LR+ (Table 2) across the 9 validation studies (31 coronal models) ranged roughly 0.78-5.53 (e.g. Beck 1.62-3.00, Christian/CAMBRA 1.09-1.14, Gao 2013 CAT ~1.03 to NUS-CRA 5.31, Campus 5.53,… | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 11 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.92 [1.28, 2.89] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Demers,1992 [14]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.60 [1.40, 1.83] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.24 [0.21, 0.29] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.87 [1.49, 2.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.93 [1.59, 2.34] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 10 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.27 [0.19, 0.39] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Sánchez-Pérez,2009 [20]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.85 [2.04, 7.27] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.26 [2.73, 3.91] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.34 [0.26, 0.46] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model development studies Population: Children and adolescents (aged 2-19) at risk of coronal caries increment (caries onset or progression) A few developmental coronal-caries prediction models reached useful positive likelihood ratios (LR+>=5, only Gao 2010), but most were modest; no pooled estimate (heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis); ungraded. Source: Table 2 [13-20]; Results 'Performance of development and validation models'; Abstract · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis (heterogeneity precluded pooling); performance given per model as LR+ recalculated by the review authors (Table 2). Across the 8 development studies (23 coronal models) LR+ spanned roughly 1.31-10.26… | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.57 [1.24, 1.99] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.73 [1.42, 2.12] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2002 [18]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.03 [1.48, 2.79] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.43 [0.3, 0.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.49 [0.42, 0.57] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao.2010 [17]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 10.26 [8.20, 12.84] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Disney,1992 [15]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.45 [0.38, 0.54] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Fontana,2011 [16]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.90 [1.57, 2.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model validation studies Population: Children and adolescents (aged 2-19) at risk of coronal caries increment (caries onset or progression) Externally validated coronal-caries models had widely varying negative likelihood ratios, several above the useful rule-out threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [19,24-32]; Results 'Performance of development and validation models' · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Per-model LR- (Table 2) across the 9 validation studies ranged from about 0.14 to 1.13 (e.g. Gao 2013 NUS-CRA 0.26, CAMBRA 0.14-0.31, CAT up to ~1.10; Campus 0.20; Pang 2020 low-risk 1.13). Overall… | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Multivariable prediction model of caries increment (>=3 predictors), e.g. logistic-regression or algorithm-based caries-risk models vs Alternative prediction model(s) within the same study, or no formal comparator (models compared descriptively; no between-model statistical test)
Population: Older adults (aged 52-95; mean 52-73) at risk of root caries increment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Predictive performance for root caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model validation studies The single root-caries validation study (Hayes 2017) showed LR- of 0.34-0.41, above the useful rule-out threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [33]; Results 'Model validation of the Cariogram' · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Hayes 2017 [33] (5 Cariogram root-caries models): per-model LR- (Table 2) ranged 0.34-0.41; none reached the useful rule-out threshold of <=0.20. | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal and/or root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Powell,1991 [21]; model performance 1 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.20 [0.74, 6.53] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for root caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model validation studies The single root-caries validation study (Hayes 2017, Cariogram) showed modest LR+ (1.88-2.78), below the useful threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [33]; Results 'Model validation of the Cariogram' · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Only one root-caries validation study (Hayes 2017 [33], 5 Cariogram models); per-model LR+ (Table 2) ranged 1.88-2.78 (best when mutans streptococci omitted). | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for root caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model development studies Developmental root-caries prediction models were generally modest, except Sanchez-Garcia 2011 (LR+ 7.09) which reached the useful threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [21-23]; Results 'Performance of development and validation models'; Abstract · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Development root-caries models from 2 root-specific studies (Ritter 2016 [22], Sanchez-Garcia 2011 [23]) plus Powell 1991 [21] (coronal and root). Per-model LR+ (Table 2): Ritter 1.81-2.23 (5 models),… | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Predictive performance for root caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model development studies Developmental root-caries models showed modest negative likelihood ratios; only Powell 1991 reached the useful rule-out threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Table 2 [21-23]; Results 'Performance of development and validation models' · same question in other reviews | No meta-analysis. Per-model LR- (Table 2): Ritter 0.36-0.48 (5 models), Powell 0.20 (0.04-0.90), Sanchez-Garcia 0.86 (0.80-0.93). Powell reached the useful rule-out threshold (LR- 0.20). | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Coronal and/or root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Powell,1991 [21]; model performance 1 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.20 [0.04, 0.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Cariogram multivariable caries-risk model (including modified/reduced-predictor versions) vs Alternative prediction model(s) within the same study, or no formal comparator (models compared descriptively; no between-model statistical test)
Population: Children/adolescents (coronal caries) and older adults (root caries); populations from areas with varying caries risk
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Predictive performance of the Cariogram for caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model validation studies Modified Cariogram models showed negative likelihood ratios of about 0.5-0.61, above the useful rule-out threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Fig. 6; Results 'Model validation of the Cariogram' [19,25,26,28,30,31,33] · same question in other reviews | Review-stated LR- range 0.5-0.61 across the Cariogram validation models (with one exception). Model performance was largely unaffected by removing the predictors mutans streptococci in saliva, saliva secretion and… | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 3 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.48 [0.32, 0.71] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 3 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.81 [1.33, 2.47] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 4 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.94 [1.42, 2.65] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 2 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.36 [0.23, 0.56] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 5 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.04 [1.49, 2.81] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Predictive performance of the Cariogram for caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) Follow-up >=1 year (included studies 1-5 years) · Model validation studies Modified Cariogram models showed modest positive likelihood ratios (LR+ ~1.1-3.8) for predicting caries increment, generally below the useful threshold; no pooled estimate; ungraded. Source: Fig. 6; Results 'Model validation of the Cariogram' [19,25,26,28,30,31,33] · same question in other reviews | Six validation studies (5 coronal, 1 root) evaluated modified Cariogram models (not the original model per se). Review-stated LR+ range 1.1-3.8 (with one exception). LR+ was not substantially changed by excluding the… | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Sánchez-García,2011 [23]; model performance 1 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR- 0.86 [0.80, 0.93] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 5 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.39 [0.26, 0.60] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 2 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.23 [1.60, 3.10] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 1 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.38, 2.55] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 4 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.42 [0.28, 0.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Sánchez-García,2011 [23]; model performance 1 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 7.09 [3.29, 15.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Ritter,2016 [22]; model performance 1 Population: Individuals of all ages The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.43 [0.29, 0.66] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Multivariable caries prediction model vs Additional prediction model(s)
Population: Individuals of all ages
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 10 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.26 [0.18, 0.37] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.82 [0.77, 0.88] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.34 [0.28, 0.40] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.55 [0.38, 0.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.48 [0.39, 0.58] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.44 [0.37, 0.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.11 [1.82, 2.45] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.00 [0.73, 1.38] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.48 [0.41, 0.56] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.45 [0.37, 0.55] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.31 [0.09, 1.04] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.34 [1.26, 1.43] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Campus,2012 [26]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 5.53 [4.36, 7.03] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.51 [1.30, 1.76] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 12 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.14 [0.08, 0.26] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.58 [0.40, 0.84] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 16 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.84 [1.24, 2.74] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.85 [2.24, 3.61] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.63 [1.17, 2.26] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Dolic,2020 [28]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.74 [0.93, 3.25] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.38 [0.31, 0.46] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 15 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.68 [0.50, 0.93] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.60 [0.43, 0.83] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.55 [0.48, 0.63] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 15 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.58 [1.09, 2.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.31 [0.24, 0.40] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.61 [0.42, 0.88] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.64 [1.47, 1.84] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.32 [0.23, 0.45] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 9 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.52 [1.37, 1.68] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Holgerson,2009 [32]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.61 [0.40, 0.94] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.60 [0.49, 0.74] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 5.31 [4.01, 7.03] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 11 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.22 [1.15, 1.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.03 [1.01, 1.06] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.62 [1.44, 1.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.60 [1.15, 2.22] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 10 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.55 [0.38, 0.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.62 [0.45, 0.86] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.83 [1.52, 2.19] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.30 [0.24, 0.36] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.72 [2.02, 3.68] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.50 [0.28, 0.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Model development with reported performance measures (per CHARMS) Model development studies Population: Individuals of any age at risk of caries increment No original CAMBRA or CAT model-development studies reporting performance measures according to CHARMS were found (evidence gap); these tools appeared only as validated models within other studies. Source: Results 'Study characteristics' ('We did not find original studies presenting model development of CAMBRA ... or CAT ... with model… · same question in other reviews | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 14 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.58 [0.42, 0.80] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.33 [0.28, 0.39] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.05 [1.82, 2.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 10 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.26 [1.92, 2.65] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.13 [1.03, 1.22] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.55 [0.47, 0.63] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.54 [1.22, 1.94] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.58 [1.09, 2.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 11 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.14 [0.06, 0.33] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.41 [0.29, 0.59] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.45 [0.33, 0.61] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.83 [1.62, 2.06] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.21 [0.05, 0.92] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 12 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.66 [1.50, 1.86] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.86 [1.39, 2.48] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Dolic,2020 [28]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.33 [0.17, 0.62] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 1.00 [0.85, 1.18] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Holgerson,2009 [32]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.83 [1.39, 10.58] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.62 [2.27, 3.03] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.59 [0.41, 0.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.55 [1.13, 2.13] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 12 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.58 [0.40, 0.84] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 13 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.66 [0.49, 0.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Christian,2020 [27]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.14 [0.92, 1.41] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.00 [2.57, 3.50] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 16 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.60 [0.43, 0.83] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.97 [1.73, 2.25] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.47 [0.33, 0.66] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.69 [1.17, 2.44] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Campus,2012 [26]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.2 [0.16, 0.25] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.61 [1.38, 1.88] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.26 [0.19, 0.34] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 0.78 [0.57, 1.08] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 14 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.27, 2.79] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.47 [0.40, 0.55] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.04 [1.02, 1.06] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Christian,2020 [27]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.83 [0.55, 1.26] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.60 [0.47, 0.76] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Dolic,2020 [28]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.67 [0.45, 0.98] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Christian,2020 [27]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.09 [0.90, 1.33] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 11 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.85 [1.29, 2.65] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 9 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.55 [1.13, 2.13] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 4.81 [3.64, 6.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.97 [1.33, 2.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Dolic,2020 [28]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.93 [1.21, 3.09] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.29 [1.48, 3.55] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 11 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.54 [0.38, 0.77] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.52 [1.11, 2.09] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 12 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.60 [1.15, 2.22] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.34 [0.22, 0.52] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 9 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.21 [0.13, 0.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.04 [1.01, 1.08] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 10 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.63 [1.17, 2.26] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 9 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.59 [0.41, 0.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.24, 2.74] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.54 [0.38, 0.76] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.15 [0.02, 1.10] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 13 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.62 [1.12, 2.35] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 3.0 [2.36, 3.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2015 [30]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.93 [0.89, 0.97] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Beck,1992 [24]; model performance 6 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.27 [1.95, 2.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Christian,2020 [27]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.74 [0.42, 1.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Pang,2021 [19]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 1.13 [0.96, 1.33] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Birpou,2019 [25]; model performance 7 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.68 [0.50, 0.93] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Gao,2013 [29]; model performance 8 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.04 [1.0, 1.08] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Coronal caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hänsel Petersson,2010 [31]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.58 [1.38, 1.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Multivariable caries prediction model vs Additional prediction model(s)
Population: Individuals of all ages
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.78 [2.14, 3.62] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.53, 2.29] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 2 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.35 [0.23, 0.52] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.37 [0.23, 0.59] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.12 [1.71, 2.63] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 4 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 1.88 [1.53, 2.29] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR+ 2.13 [1.68, 2.69] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 1 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.34 [0.21, 0.54] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 3 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.37 [0.23, 0.59] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Root caries increment Follow-up ≥1 year · Hayes,2017 [33]; model performance 5 The review reported this model performance without meta-analysis. Source: Table 2 · same question in other reviews | LR− 0.41 [0.28, 0.61] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Included primary studies 22
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angulo 1995 Caries incidence, effect of preventive measures, and caries prediction in Uruguayan children. PMID:7740923 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Beck 1992 University of North Carolina Caries Risk Assessment Study: comparisons of high risk prediction, any risk prediction, and any risk… PMID:1464224 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Birpou 2019 Validation of different Cariogram settings and factor combinations in preschool children from areas with high caries risk. PMID:30735595 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Campus 2012 Cariogram validity in schoolchildren: a two-year follow-up study. PMID:22222621 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Christian 2020 A methodological study to assess the measurement properties (reliability and validity) of a caries risk assessment tool for young children. PMID:32200008 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Demers 1992 A multivariate model to predict caries increment in Montreal children aged 5 years. PMID:1451000 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Demers et al. 1992 The urethral sphincter mechanism: where are we now? PMID:11451000 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Disney 1992 The University of North Carolina Caries Risk Assessment study: further developments in caries risk prediction. PMID:1555390 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Dolic 2020 Validation of Cariogram in Caries Prediction in Women and Their Children 4 Years After Pregnancy - Longitudinal Study. PMID:32607023 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Fontana 2011 Risk factors of caries progression in a Hispanic school-aged population. PMID:21765039 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gao 2010 Building caries risk assessment models for children. PMID:20400721 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gao 2013 Validity of caries risk assessment programmes in preschool children. PMID:23791698 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hansel Petersson 2002 Evaluation of a computer program for caries risk assessment in schoolchildren. PMID:12399693 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hansel Petersson 2010 Caries risk profiles in schoolchildren over 2 years assessed by Cariogram. PMID:20642470 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hansel Petersson 2015 Caries risk assessment in young adults: a 3 year validation of the Cariogram model. PMID:25627618 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hayes 2017 Evaluation of the Cariogram for root caries prediction. PMID:28456556 | this review only | Predictive performance for root caries increment (positive likelihood ratio, LR+) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lif Holgerson 2009 Validation of an age-modified caries risk assessment program (Cariogram) in preschool children. PMID:19152150 | this review only | Predictive performance for coronal caries increment (negative likelihood ratio, LR-) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pang 2021 A New Model for Caries Risk Prediction in Teenagers Using a Machine Learning Algorithm Based on Environmental and Genetic Factors. PMID:33777105 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Powell 1991 Exploration of prediction models for caries risk assessment of the geriatric population. PMID:1742996 | this review only | Coronal and/or root caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ritter 2016 A Predictive Model for Root Caries Incidence. PMID:27160516 | this review only | Coronal and/or root caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Sanchez-Garcia 2011 A prediction model for root caries in an elderly population. PMID:20735446 | this review only | Coronal and/or root caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Sanchez-Perez 2009 Clinical, salivary, and bacterial markers for caries risk assessment in schoolchildren: a 4-year follow-up. PMID:19399983 | this review only | Coronal caries increment | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |