Jablonski‐Momeni 2012a.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: unclear Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions Teeth: permanent premolars and molars Sealants: not reported Surface: occlusal; "permanent posterior teeth without occlusal restorations"
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: not reported Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Germany Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 36 teeth/82 sites Prevalence: enamel 0.84, dentine 0.48
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent and VistaCam iX (using fluorescence) Sequence of test(s): index tests (visual then DIAGNOdent and VistaCam) performed prior to reference standard Examiner training and calibration: 2 examiners, "doctoral student calibrated by an experienced investigator" Teeth cleaning prior to examination: yes, method not reported Tooth drying prior to examination: not reported Threshold applied: DIAGNOdent: 0‐7 sound; 8‐24 enamel caries; > 25 dentine caries VistaCam: 0.0‐0.9 sound; 0.9‐2.0 enamel; > 2.0 dentine caries (manufacturers thresholds) Device specifics: DIAGNOdent pen: tip A VistaProof: long‐distance spacer
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: excavation 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: all teeth opened with rotating instrument Target condition: sound, enamel, dentine
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: 0 Participants with reference standard but no index test: 4, "While using the FC device, 4 investigation sites could not be assessed due to technical problems" 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?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear 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)?	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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Green fluorescence)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Blue 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)?	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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Red fluorescence)
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?		Low risk