Jeon 2004.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions Teeth: permanent/primary premolars and molars Sealants: unclear Surface: occlusal and smooth
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: not reported Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Canada Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 52 teeth/332 sites (104 healthy points, 176 occlusal fissures, 52 healthy points on the smooth surface) Prevalence: enamel level not reported, dentine 0.16 (from the DIAGNOdent results in table 3)
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent (completed on 131 sites ‐ Table 3 in paper) Sequence of test(s): index tests performed (visual, radiograph then DIAGNOdent) prior to reference standard Examiner training and calibration: not reported Teeth cleaning prior to examination: not reported Tooth drying prior to examination: not reported Threshold applied: 0‐4 sound or outer enamel, 4.01‐10 inner enamel, 10.01‐18 outer dentine, 18.01+ inner dentine 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: marked on a photograph prior to index test, then sectioned teeth 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: differs, some examiners did not assess all sites Time interval between tests: minimal Participants receiving both tests but excluded from results: 0
Comparative
Notes	Study also assesses frequency‐domain photothermal radiometry and frequency‐domain luminescence
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?			Unclear
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?		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?	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?		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?	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?	No
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk