Bussaneli 2015a.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions "sound or carious primary molars in proximal contact", exclusions "Teeth with restoration, occlusal caries, hypoplasias, and an advanced stage of rhizolysis were not included" Teeth: primary molars Sealants: not reported Surface: approximal |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Age: 5 to 9 years Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Brazil Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 45 participants/59 teeth Prevalence: enamel 0.71, dentine 0.58 |
||
Index tests | Category of test: DIAGNOdent pen Sequence of test(s): index tests (visual, DIAGNOdent pen, radiograph) prior to reference standard Examiner training and calibration: experienced Teeth cleaning prior to examination: brush at low speed, using prophylactic paste and dental floss Tooth drying prior to examination: unclear Threshold applied: 0‐14 sound, 15‐21 enamel, 22‐37 outer dentine, 38+ inner dentine Device specifics: tip 1 |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Category: visual after separation using orthodontic rubber bands (4 mm) for 7 days Sequence of index test and reference standard: index test then reference standard Training of examiner: 2 trained and experienced examiners Blinding to index test: unclear Multiple tests: no Site selection: all approximal surfaces Target condition: healthy, active lesions without loss of structure, signs of caries requiring restoration |
||
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: 0 |
||
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? | 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? | High | ||
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? | Yes | ||
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? | Low risk | ||
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Low concern | ||
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? | Yes | ||
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? | Low risk | ||
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Low concern | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | No | ||
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? | High risk | ||
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? | High | ||
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? | Yes | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Low risk |