Lee 2018.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: "selected from a pool of extracted human teeth having questionable caries" Included conditions: questionable caries Teeth: permanent premolars and molars Sealants: not reported Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 20 years or older Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: South Korea Setting: extracted teeth Number of participants/teeth/sites: 66 teeth (4 were broken during sectioning) Prevalence: 0.81 enamel, 0.11 dentine
Index tests	Category of test: QLF–Digital Biluminator™ 2+, decrease in fluorescence (ΔF) and the increase in red fluorescence (ΔR) are both reported Sequence of test(s): index test (QLF) followed by reference standard Examiner training and calibration: not reported Teeth cleaning prior to examination: calculus and soft tissue removed with scaler Tooth drying prior to examination: not reported Threshold applied: optimum thresholds calculated in study: ΔF sound 62, enamel 82, dentine 93 Device specifics: "an analysis patch was delimited by drawing a border that pointed at sound parts without discolorations from the stained pits and fissures with suspected caries according to manufacturer recommendations using the QLF‐D software"
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: histology Sequence of index test and reference standard: index tests then reference standard Training of examiner: not reported Blinding to index test: not reported Multiple tests: no Site selection: sectioned teeth Target condition: "no enamel demineralization or a narrow surface zone of opacity (scored as 0), enamel demineralization limited to the outer 50% of the enamel layer (scored as 1), demineralization involving the inner 50% of enamel up to the DEJ (scored as 2), and demineralization involving the outer 50% of the dentine (scored as 3)"
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: 4 ‐ reported that these were broken during sectioning 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 reported for the decrease in fluorescence (ΔF)
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?	Unclear
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?			Low concern
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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Green 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?	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?			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?	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