Francescut 2003.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: randomly selected Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions; "They were macroscopically intact to the naked eye" Teeth: primary and permanent molars Sealants: no Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: not reported Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Switzerland Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 190 teeth Prevalence: 0.18 dentine
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent Sequence of test(s): index tests (visual and DIAGNOdent) followed by reference standard Examiner training and calibration: yes Teeth cleaning prior to examination: calculus removed Tooth drying prior to examination: air dried 2 seconds Threshold applied: D2 > 14, D3 > 112 (D1 combined with sound) calculated within study, "For Diagnodent, the best cutoffs were set at a value in which the maximal sensitivity and specificity were obtained" Device specifics: not reported
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: caries: enamel outer, enamel inner, outer dentine, inner 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	Data only available at the dentine level due to the combining of sound and non‐cavitated lesions
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Yes
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Low 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?	No
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?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			High
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?
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?
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?		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?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk