Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Souza 2013

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

Respiratory problems in early childhood and molar-incisor hypomineralization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · aetiology · 2026 · cited as Souza 2013 · Table 1; Figs. 5-8

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), crude association Pneumonia in early childhood vs No pneumonia · Exposure birth to 3 years; MIH assessed at 6-28 years	OR 1.88 [0.75, 4.69]	9 studies · 8120 participants	Very low
Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), crude association Pneumonia in early childhood vs No pneumonia · Exposure birth to 3 years; MIH assessed at 6-28 years	OR 2.05 [1.04, 4.04]	3 studies · 458 participants	GRADE not reported
Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), adjusted association Pneumonia in early childhood vs No pneumonia · Exposure birth to 3 years; MIH assessed at 6-28 years	OR 4.20 [1.06, 16.61]	4 studies	GRADE not reported
Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), crude association Pneumonia in early childhood vs No pneumonia · Exposure birth to 3 years; MIH assessed at 6-28 years	OR 1.73 [0.54, 5.57]	6 studies · 7662 participants	GRADE not reported
Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), adjusted association Pneumonia in early childhood vs No pneumonia · Exposure birth to 3 years; MIH assessed at 6-28 years	OR 1.44 [0.34, 6.10]	1 study	GRADE not reported
Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), adjusted association Pneumonia in early childhood vs No pneumonia · Exposure birth to 3 years; MIH assessed at 6-28 years	OR 3.33 [1.05, 10.51]	5 studies	Very low

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 Souza 2013 · Table 2; Results meta-analysis paragraphs; reference 24

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

2 including reviews in total.