Evidence Hub

Factors involved in validity measurements of diagnostic tests for approximal caries--a meta-analysis

van Rijkom HM, Verdonschot EH

Caries research, 1995

Abstract

In this study, a meta-analysis was performed on published validity parameters of visual inspection, radiographic examination and visual inspection upon fibreoptic transillumination (FOTI) in approximal caries diagnosis. It was the objective to investigate the influence of the diagnostic test, the study design and the validation method on reported validity. Sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature were transformed into D2 values, representing the performance of a diagnostic method above chance, or of the observer using it, in a single parameter. Dz values were neither statistically significantly different between visual inspection, radiographic examination and FOTI nor between 'weak' and 'strong' validation methods (p > 0.05). Dz values obtained from in vivo studies were significantly different from those obtained from in vitro studies (p < 0.05), indicating that study design had a significant impact on the measurement of the validity of the evaluated test for approximal caries diagnosis.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free