Kim 2017.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: not clearly reported Included conditions: severity of condition unclear, "subjects with 1 or more proximal caries surfaces detected visually or radiographically were included in the study", restorations were included Teeth: permanent molars and premolars Sealants: not reported Surface: approximal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 19 to 60 years Sex: 55% male Ethnicity: not reported Country: South Korea Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 65 teeth/280 sites Prevalence: enamel 0.61, dentine 0.20
Index tests	Category of test: QLF‐Digital Biluminator 2+ (QLF‐D, Inspektor Research Systems BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 2 methods one using QA2 software, the second using fluorescence images interpreted by an examiner: "Normal white‐light images and sequential fluorescence images were captured with a “live view” enabled full‐frame sensor digital SLR camera" Sequence of test(s): visual then radiograph followed by QLF, radiograph was the reference standard Examiner training and calibration: 1 trained examiner completed all index tests and reference standard Teeth cleaning prior to examination: full‐mouth scaling and polishing Tooth drying prior to examination: not reported Threshold applied: method used for fluorescence image method: shadow and no red fluorescence (Q0), an irregular dark shadow but no red fluorescence (Q1), faint red fluorescence limited to 1/3 of the buccolingual width (Q2), and strong red fluorescence over 1/3 of the buccolingual width (Q3)
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: radiograph Sequence of index test and reference standard: reference standard prior to index test Training of examiner: not reported, but experienced Blinding to index test: no Multiple tests: no Site selection: approximal surfaces Target condition: sound, outer/inner enamel, outer/inner dentine
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: 15 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 used for the fluorescence images method as the 2x2 figures were not available for the software method
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?	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)
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 (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?	No
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?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk