ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
STAndard Reporting of CAries Detection and Diagnostic Studies (STARCARDDS).
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. 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.
- Paired in vivo diagnostic accuracy and reliability of QrayCam Pro and QrayPen for occlusal and proximal caries in permanent posterior teeth.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of visual and radiographic ICDAS-merged criteria for secondary caries on permanent posterior teeth.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- 3D intraoral scanner as an auxiliary tool for the diagnosis of dental hard-tissue conditions.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography for Assessing the Severity of Dental Caries: An In Vitro Validation Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Relationship of finger dermatoglyphics with ameloglyphics and their values as dental caries predictors in primary teeth.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Accuracy of laser fluorescence in assessment of various caries removal techniques: an in vitro validation.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Review
- 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
- Near-Infrared Transillumination for Occlusal Carious Lesion Detection: A Retrospective Reliability Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
aimThe aim of this paper is to present recommendations from an international workshop which evaluated the methodology and reporting of caries diagnostic studies. As a unique feature, this type of studies is focused on caries lesion detection and assessment, and many of them are carried out in vitro, because of the possibility of histological validation of the whole caries spectrum. This feature is not well covered in the existing reporting STARD guideline within the EQUATOR Network. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsAn international working group of 13 cariology researchers was formed. The STARD checklist was reviewed and modified for caries detection and diagnosis purposes, in a three-step process of evaluation, consensual modification, and delivery during three 2-day workshops over 18 months. Special attention was paid to reporting requirements of caries studies that solely focus on reliability.
resultsThe STARD checklist was modified in 14/30 items, with an emphasis on issues of sample selection (tooth selection in in vitro studies), blinding, and detailed reporting of results.
conclusionFollowing STARCARDDS (STAndard Reporting of CAries Detection and Diagnostic Studies) is expected to result in complete reporting of study design and methodology in future caries diagnosis and detection experiments both in vivo and in vitro, thus allowing for better comparability of studies and higher quality of systematic reviews. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Standardization of caries diagnostic studies leads to a better comparability among future studies, both in vivo and in vitro.
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.