Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28357692›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2017

Performance of a recent light fluorescence device for detection of occlusal carious lesions in children and adolescents.

M Muller-Bolla, C Joseph, M Pisapia, P Tramini, A M Velly, H Tassery

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M Muller-BollaPaediatric Dentistry Department, UFR Odontology, Nice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA), CHUN, 24 av des Diables bleus, 06357, Nice, France. Michele.muller@unice.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2811-5339
C JosephPaediatric Dentistry Department, UFR Odontology, Nice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA), CHUN, 24 av des Diables bleus, 06357, Nice, France.
M PisapiaPaediatric Dentistry Department, UFR Odontology, Aix-Marseille-University, Marseille, France.
P TraminiPublic Health Department, UFR Odontology, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.
A M VellyMcGill University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada.
H TasseryRestorative Department Marseille, UFR Odontology, Aix-Marseille-University, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the validity and reliability of a recent light fluorescence device, Soprolife

methodsA multi-centre study was carried out to validate Soprolife

resultsWhen all carious lesions using ICDAS 1-6 were considered, SE, SP and AUC for the Soprolife

conclusionThe Soprolife

Indexed as

FluorescenceAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDental CariesDental EquipmentFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAdolescentsCaries diagnosisChildrenLight fluorescence device

Identifiers

PMID28357692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.