ReviewCureus2025
The Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulse Oximetry for Assessing Pulp Vitality: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of second molars with external root resorption following impacted third molar removal: a retrospective CBCT-based cohort study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study of pulpal oxygen saturation in permanent incisors affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH).European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry (PO) in patients with apical periodontitis (AP) or undergoing an endodontic treatment. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist was followed to carry out this review. The diagnostic potential of pulse oximetry for pulp vitality status was studied through databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost from 2000 to 2024. Extraction or manual calculation of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, false-negative, sensitivity, and specificity values were done. Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS)-2 tool and RevMan ver. 5.3 qualitatively assessed the included studies. The included seven studies evaluated 654 teeth and reported a low risk of bias (ROB). The included studies evaluated the reliability, efficacy, and diagnostic ability of PO and compared it to other conventional pulp vitality and sensitivity tests like a cold test, thermal test, electric pulp test (EPT), spray, and rubber cups. Its overall sensitivity ranged from 81-100% (mean 95%) and overall specificity ranged from 94-100% (mean 99%). It was concluded that pulse oximetry overall is more reliable, superior, effective and has overall diagnostic efficacy in detecting the target condition compared to other conventional modalities.
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.