Table 2.
Qualitative analysis of included studies by Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).
| Criteria | D’Arienzo [20] | Chebib [21] |
Jung [22] |
Lo Russo [23] |
Hack [24] |
Kalberer [25] | Chebib [26] | Alhamad [27] | Patzelt [13] | Brian [28] | Osnes [29] | Zarone [30] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Was the range of the edentulous mucosa representative of what will be identified clinically? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2. | Were criteria for selection clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3. | Control method likely to correctly classify the target condition | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4. | The timelapse between the reference method and test method is short enough so the target tissue does not change | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5. | Did the whole sample receive the verification? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6. | Edentulous mucosa received the same control method regardless of the test method | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 7. | Was the control method independent of the test method? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8. | Test method execution described in detail | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9. | Execution of the control method described in detail | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 10. | Test results deciphered without knowledge of the control method results | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11. | Control method results deciphered without knowledge of the test method results | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12. | Intermediate test results reported | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 13. | Withdrawal from the study explained | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
A score of 1 was assigned for “yes” answers and a score of 0 for “no” or “unclear” answers. The maximum score achievable was 13, indicating a low risk of bias.