evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Costa 2007

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of laser fluorescence and conventional caries detection methods in children: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Non-Cochrane · DTA · 2026 · cited as Costa 2007 · Table 2; Results meta-analysis paragraphs; reference 17
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Pooled log diagnostic odds ratio
Laser fluorescence devices (DIAGNOdent, DIAGNOdent Pen) vs Reference standard (histological, operative, temporary tooth separation, or combined visual and radiographic assessment)
log diagnostic odds ratio 2.94 [2.15, 3.74]8 studiesGRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity
Laser fluorescence devices (DIAGNOdent, DIAGNOdent Pen) vs Reference standard (histological, operative, temporary tooth separation, or combined visual and radiographic assessment)
Sensitivity 0.84 [0.80, 0.87]8 studiesGRADE not reported
Area under the HSROC curve (AUC)
Laser fluorescence devices (DIAGNOdent, DIAGNOdent Pen) vs Reference standard (histological, operative, temporary tooth separation, or combined visual and radiographic assessment)
AUC 0.868 studiesGRADE not reported
Pooled specificity
Laser fluorescence devices (DIAGNOdent, DIAGNOdent Pen) vs Reference standard (histological, operative, temporary tooth separation, or combined visual and radiographic assessment)
Specificity 0.77 [0.67, 0.84]8 studiesGRADE not reported
Powered vs. manual toothbrushes in fixed orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Costa 2007 · Reference list (included papers 38-60); Supplementary S2

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

2 including reviews in total.