Duruturk 2011.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Method of sampling: selected "Teeth in which neither enamel nor dentin caries cavities were detected by visual or radiographic examination were measured using DIAGNOdent" Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions Teeth: primary molars Sealants: no Surface: occlusal |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Age: 6 to 7 years Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Turkey Setting: attending pedodontic clinic Number of participants/teeth/sites: 307 participants/505 teeth/748 sites Prevalence: enamel 0.36, dentine not reported |
||
Index tests | Category of test: DIAGNOdent Sequence of test(s): radiograph, visual, and DIAGNOdent followed by reference standard Examiner training and calibration: trained and calibrated Teeth cleaning prior to examination: professionally cleaned Tooth drying prior to examination: air spray 2 seconds Threshold applied: 0‐14 sound, 15‐20 enamel, 21+ dentine Device specifics: not reported |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Category: radiograph and visual combined Sequence of index test and reference standard: index test then reference standard Training of examiner: experienced Blinding to index test: yes Multiple tests: combined test Site selection: teeth were drawn to aid examiners Target condition: sound, inner/outer enamel, inner/outer dentine |
||
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? | Low concern | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All) | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | No | ||
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? | High 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? | No | ||
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? | High 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? | Yes | ||
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? | 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? | No | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Unclear risk |