Bussaneli 2015.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: sound and early lesions; "One hundred and two permanent healthy or decayed human teeth (molars and premolars) were obtained and cleaned" Teeth: permanent premolars and molars Sealants: not reported Restorations: not reported Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: not reported Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Brazil Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 102 teeth Prevalence: enamel 0.70, dentine 0.19
Index tests	Category of test: near‐infrared laser transillumination Sequence of test(s): index tests (radiograph, near‐infrared then DIAGNOdent pen and QLF) prior to reference standard; each index test separated by 1 week Examiner training and calibration: experienced, blinding of tests due to time gap between assessments of each index test Threshold applied: "measurements were used to calculate the contrast intensities" Device specifics: "A prototype manufactured by DMC Equipamentos (São Carlos, Brazil) was used"
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: histology Sequence of index test and reference standard: index test then reference standard Training of examiner: not reported Blinding to index test: unclear Multiple tests: no Site selection: sectioned teeth Target condition: healthy, enamel, lesion at the dentine‐enamel junction or dentinal
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: 0 Participants with reference standard but no index test: 0 Time interval between tests: minimal Participants receiving both tests but excluded from results: 8 teeth excluded from results as near‐infrared device failed to return a result, therefore excluded from all tests
Comparative
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	No
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Unclear
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			High
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Yes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Yes
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk