Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34636266›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental research2022

Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews.

T Walsh, R Macey, D Ricketts, A Carrasco Labra, H Worthington, A J Sutton, S Freeman, A M Glenny, P Riley, J Clarkson and 1 more

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors.

T WalshDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7003-8854
R MaceyDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
D RickettsDundee Dental School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
A Carrasco LabraDepartment of Evidence Synthesis and Translation Research, Science and Research Institute, LLC, American Dental Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
H WorthingtonDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
A J SuttonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
S FreemanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8045-4405
A M GlennyDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
P RileyDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
J ClarksonDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
E CerulloDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 16/114/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection and diagnosis of caries-typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations-is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future "real world" context.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Caries SusceptibilityHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySystematic Reviews as TopicTransilluminationevidence-based dentistryfluorescenceradiographystatistics, sensitivity and specificitytransillumination

Identifiers

PMID34636266
PMCPMC8864327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.