Li 2006.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: unclear Included conditions: non‐cavitated Teeth: primary molars Sealants: no Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 5 to 6 years, mean 5.3 Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: China Setting: school based (kindergarten) Number of participants/teeth/sites: 72 participants/541 teeth Prevalence: not reported
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent Sequence of test(s): DIAGNOdent then visual Examiner training and calibration: not reported Teeth cleaning prior to examination: yes, with a portable low‐speed hand‐piece brush Tooth drying prior to examination: yes, dried with high pressure air (triple syringe) Threshold applied: < 10 intact, 10‐14 early enamel caries, 15‐20 enamel caries, 21‐30 early dentine caries, > = 31 deep dentine caries Device specifics: tip A
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: visual Sequence of index test and reference standard: following but influenced by DIAGNOdent Training of examiner: not reported Blinding to index test: no "visual examination was performed on occlusal spots that had the highest laser fluorescence scores during DIAGNOdent examination" Multiple tests: no Site selection: sectioned teeth Target condition: Caries (Ekstrand’s index)
Flow and timing	Participants with index test but no reference standard: 0 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	Paper translated by Cochrane author, data not useable as 2x2 table not attainable, study investigates median DIAGNOdent values at each Ekstrand code
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?			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?	Yes
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?
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?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?
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?	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?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk