ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Identifying and Avoiding Risk of Bias in Caries Diagnostic Studies.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of teledentistry in detecting dental caries among school children in Makkah City: a diagnostic comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Should body mass index be considered when assessing caries severity in adults?Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparison of dental findings between dentists and pediatricians using intraoral scan-based teledentistry in children.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Review
- Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Model for Early Childhood Caries Detection in Dental Photographs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- ORCA-EFCD consensus report on clinical recommendation for caries diagnosis. Paper I: caries lesion detection and depth assessment.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- The Dentist's Ability to Detect Different Restorative Procedures on Periapical Radiographs-Results from a Reliability Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- ICCMS™ root caries lesions stages and their underlying depth towards the pulp: an in vitro study with histologic evaluation.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Emerging Technologies for Dentin Caries Detection-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Caries diagnostic studies differ with respect to their design, included patients/tooth samples, use of diagnostic and reference methods, calibration, blinding and data reporting. Such heterogeneity makes comparisons between studies difficult and could represent a substantial risk of bias (RoB) when it is not identified. Therefore, the present report aims to describe the development and background of a RoB assessment tool for caries diagnostic studies. The expert group developed and agreed to use a RoB assessment tool during three workshops. Here, existing instruments (e.g., QUADAS 2 and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual) influenced the hierarchy and phrasing of the signalling questions that were adapted to the specific dental purpose. The tailored RoB assessment tool that was created consists of 16 signalling questions that are organized in four domains. This tool considers the selection/spectrum bias (1), the bias of the index (2) and reference tests (3), and the bias of the study flow and data analysis (4) and can be downloaded from the journal website. This paper explores possible sources of heterogeneity and bias in caries diagnostic studies and summarizes the relevant methodological aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.