Muller‐Bolla 2017.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: unclear how participants were identified Included conditions: enamel lesions, possibly cavitated, "Caries‐free subjects (without carious lesions diagnosed by both visual examination and bitewing radiographs) or uncooperative children during the examination were excluded" Teeth: primary and permanent, premolars and molars Sealants: unclear Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 5 to 15 years Sex: 60% male Ethnicity: not reported Country: France Setting: university hospital, attending paediatric clinic Number of participants/teeth/sites: 103 participants/743 sites Prevalence: enamel 0.72, dentine 0.29
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent pen and Soprolife Sequence of test(s): visual and radiograph (reference standard) followed by Soprolife and DIAGNOdent pen Examiner training and calibration: 1 day calibration session Teeth cleaning prior to examination: sodium bicarbonate powder‐cleaning tool was used for 5 to 10 seconds per tooth Tooth drying prior to examination: not reported Threshold applied: Soprolife: sound ‐ shiny green, outer enamel ‐ tiny, thin red or grey shimmer in the pits and fissure, inner enamel ‐ red shimmer, grey or black colouration in the pits and fissure, dentine ‐ red areas wider than fissures; surface roughness occurs, possibly grey or rough grey zone visible DIAGNOdent pen: 0‐12 sound, 13‐24 enamel, 25+ dentine Device specifics: fibre tip for DIAGNOdent pen, Soprolife ‐ "studied using the SoproImaging software"
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: visual (ICDAS) and radiograph Sequence of index test and reference standard: reference standard before Soprolife and DIAGNOdent pen Training of examiner: experienced examiners with 1 day training Blinding to index test: yes Multiple tests: yes Site selection: full surface assessed Target condition: ICDAS 1 to 6
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	Prevalence of caries for primary and permanent dentition unknown so have to use the mixed dentition results
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?	No
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?	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)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Blue 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 (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?	Yes
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