Jung 2018.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: consecutive Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions Teeth: permanent Sealants: no Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: minimum age of 18 years Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: South Korea Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 94 participants/791 teeth Prevalence: enamel 0.47, dentine 0.14
Index tests	Category of test: QLF images Sequence of test(s): index tests performed (visual then QLF) prior to histology Examiner training and calibration: yes ‐ single calibrated examiner Teeth cleaning prior to examination: professionally by therapists Tooth drying prior to examination: "sufficient drying" Threshold applied: sound, initial caries, enamel caries, dentine Device specifics: not reported clearly ‐ QS‐Occlusal software algorithm was used to determine the levels of disease D1 = 0/1, D2 = 1/2, D3 = 3/4
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: visual ICDAS classification Sequence of index test and reference standard: visual examination completed prior to QLF with histology following Training of examiner: not reported Blinding to index test: unclear ‐ examiner not blinded between visual and QLF, although 2 weeks passed between assessments Multiple tests: yes Site selection: marked on a photograph prior to index test, then sectioned teeth Target condition: ICDAS codes
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: 0 Participants with reference standard but no index test: lack of clarity on true reference standard Time interval between tests: 2 weeks Participants receiving both tests but excluded from results: 0
Comparative
Notes	D1 threshold used as labelled in table 4 as 0 versus 1‐4
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?	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?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Green 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?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Blue fluorescence)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Red fluorescence)
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?			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?	Unclear
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Unclear risk