Table 3.

Diagnostic accuracy of pulp vitality and sensibility tests for the studies included in meta-analysis.

Index Test	Study Id	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	LR+	LR−	Prevalence	Diagnostic Odds Ratio
PO	Gopikrishna et al., 2007 [7]	42	2	0	36	1.00 [0.92, 1.00]	0.95 [0.82, 0.99]	0.9545	1.0000	19.0000	0.0000	0.5250	0
	Karayilmaz and Kirzioğlu, 2011 [10]	48	0	11	0	0.81 [0.69, 0.90]	Not estimable	1.0000	0.0000	-	-	1.0000	-
	Dastmalchi et al., 2012 [11]	9	0	1	14	0.90 [0.55, 1.00]	1.00 [0.77, 1.00]	1.0000	0.9333	-	0.1000	0.4167	-
	Sharma et al., 2015 [27]	39	0	1	10	0.97 [0.87, 1.00]	1.00 [0.69, 1.00]	1.0000	0.9091	-	0.0250	0.8000	-
	Ajitha et al., 2020 [29]	38	0	1	40	0.97 [0.87, 1.00]	1.00 [0.91, 1.00]	1.0000	0.9756	-	0.0256	0.4937	-
	Total pooled estimates	176	2	14	100	0.93 [0.88, 0.96]	0.98 [0.93, 1.00]	0.98	0.87	47.24	0.075	0.65	628.5
	For comparison with EPT *	176	2	14	100	0.93 [0.88, 0.96]	0.98 [0.93, 1.00]	0.98	0.87	47.24	0.075	0.65	628.5
	For comparison with CT *	89	2	2	90	0.98 [0.92, 1.00]	0.98 [0.92, 1.00]	0.97	0.97	44.98	0.02	0.49	2249
	For comparison with HT *	47	0	1	54	0.98 [0.89, 1.00]	1.00 [0.93, 1.00]	1.00	0.98	-	0.02	0.47	-
EPT	Gopikrishna et al., 2007 [7]	30	3	12	35	0.71 [0.55, 0.84]	0.92 [0.79, 0.98]	0.9091	0.7447	9.0476	0.3102	0.5250	29.16
	Karayilmaz and Kirzioğlu, 2011 [10]	54	0	5	0	0.92 [0.81, 0.97]	Not estimable	1.0000	0.0000	-	-	1.0000	-
	Dastmalchi et al., 2012 [11]	2	6	7	9	0.22 [0.03, 0.60]	0.60 [0.32, 0.84]	0.2500	0.5625	0.5556	1.2963	0.3750	0.43
	Sharma et al., 2015 [27]	35	5	6	4	0.85 [0.71, 0.94]	0.44 [0.14, 0.79]	0.8750	0.4000	1.5366	0.3293	0.8200	4.66
	Ajitha et al., 2020 [29]	30	13	9	27	0.77 [0.61, 0.89]	0.68 [0.51, 0.81]	0.6977	0.7500	2.3669	0.3419	0.4937	6.92
	Total pooled estimates	151	27	39	75	0.79 [0.73, 0.85]	0.74 [0.64, 0.82]	0.8483	0.6579	3.0023	0.2792	0.650	10.75
CT	Gopikrishna et al., 2007 [7]	34	3	8	35	0.81 [0.66, 0.91]	0.92 [0.79, 0.98]	0.9189	0.8140	10.2540	0.2068	0.5250	49.58
	Dastmalchi et al., 2012 [11]	6	7	3	8	0.67 [0.30, 0.93]	0.53 [0.27, 0.79]	0.4615	0.7273	1.4286	0.6250	0.3750	2.28
	Ajitha et al., 2020 [29]	31	7	8	33	0.79 [0.64, 0.91]	0.82 [0.67, 0.93]	0.8158	0.8049	4.5421	0.2486	0.4937	18.27
	Total pooled estimates	71	17	19	76	0.79 [0.69, 0.87]	0.82 [0.72, 0.89]	0.81	0.80	4.31	0.25	0.49	17.24
HT	Dastmalchi et al., 2012 [11]	5	6	4	9	0.56 [0.21, 0.86]	0.60 [0.32, 0.84]	0.4545	0.6923	1.3889	0.7407	0.3750	1.87
	Ajitha et al., 2020 [29]	21	8	18	32	0.54 [0.37, 0.70]	0.80 [0.64, 0.91]	0.7241	0.6400	2.6923	0.5769	0.4937	4.66
	Total pooled estimates	26	14	22	41	0.54 [0.39, 0.69]	0.75 [0.61, 0.85]	0.65	0.65	2.12	0.61	0.46	3.47

* Only studies with comparisons included.