Primary study · included by 1 review

Goswami 2015

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 Goswami 2015 · Table 2; Results meta-analysis paragraphs; reference 29

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
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 studies	GRADE 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 studies	GRADE 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 0.86	8 studies	GRADE 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 studies	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.