Bahrololoomi 2015.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions "intact or had incipient and inconspicuous caries with or without colour change were selected" Teeth: permanent molars Sealants: no Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 7 to 13 years Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Iran Setting: dental school Number of participants/teeth/sites: 31 participants/115 teeth (6 of these were excluded "due to patient dropout" so they became 109 teeth) Prevalence: enamel 0.94, dentine 0.37
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent Sequence of test(s): index tests (visual, radiograph, DIAGNOdent) performed prior to reference standard Examiner training and calibration: not reported Teeth cleaning prior to examination: cleaning with a rubber cup and pumice powder Tooth drying prior to examination: isolation with cotton rolls, and drying Threshold applied: defined in study: 0‐7 sound, 8‐10 enamel, 11+ dentine Device specifics: not reported
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: excavation ‐ in cases with obvious or ambiguous caries 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: excavated suspicious site Target condition: sound, enamel, dentine
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: unclear whether all surfaces were excavated and if not then what the reference standard was Participants with reference standard but no index test: 0 Time interval between tests: minimal Participants receiving both tests but excluded from results: 0
Comparative
Notes	Examiner 2 results used for analysis
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?	Yes
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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All)
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?	No
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?	No
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Unclear
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Green fluorescence)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Blue fluorescence)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Red fluorescence)
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?	No
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?	No
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Unclear
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?	Unclear
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Unclear 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?	Unclear
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk