Sbu • Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Yüklə 4,3 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Type of lesion and prevalence Number of teeth and surfaces Method Com
- Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments
- Table 4.2.3
- Author Year, reference Country Type of study Num
- Table 4.2.4
- Author, year, reference Diagnostic method Caries, dentition Main reason
|
Author Year, reference Country Type of study Num- ber of obser- vers Observer reliability Popu- lation Type of lesion and prevalence Number of teeth and surfaces Method Com- parison method Outcome measure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments Verdon-
schot et al 1993 [55]* The Nether-
lands, Denmark
In vitro 4 No infor- mation Extrac-
ted 3 molars
from soldiers aged 18–20
yrs Occlusal caries, 27/81 (27%) no sign of caries, 26 (32%) small lesions in dentine, 28 (35%) large lesions in inner dentine 81 teeth
BW Histology Se, Sp, AUC
Se: 61% Sp: 79%
Low No reliability test Wenzel
et al 1991 [36]* Denmark, France
In vitro 4 Extrac-
ted 3rd molars
without visible
macro- scopic
cavitation from
18–20 yr old men
Occlusal caries,
cariesfree or caries in enamel 27/81,
dentine caries 54 81 teeth dBW &
BW Histology True posi- tive, false positive, PPV, NPV, LR+
Se: 62%
Sp: 85% PPV: 0.84 NPV: 0.51
Se: 66%
Sp: 83% PPV: 0.83 NPV: 0.51 Low
No reliability test. Not representative teeth (3rd molars) Wenzel
et al 2002 [56] Denmark In vitro 4 Extrac- ted teeth Approxi- mal caries, 82/363 (23%)
enamel caries, 55 (15%) den- tine caries 190 teeth (146 molars, 31 premolars, 13 canines) 363 approximal surfaces
dBW Histology Se, Sp, PPV, NPV
All caries Se: 27%
Sp: 94% PPV: 0.77 NPV: 0.68 Se: 37%
Sp: 96% PPV: 0.65 NPV: 0.90 Low
No reliability test
White et al 1997 [29]* USA In vitro 16 Extrac- ted teeth Approxi- mal caries 84/320 (26%) outer 1/2 enamel, 76 (24%) inner 1/2, 80 (25%) outer 1/2 dentine 80 molars, 80 premolars, 80 canines, 80 incisors 320 surfaces BW Histology (hemisec- tions)
Se, Sp, accuracy. PPV and NPV for
different prevalence examples Se: 46%
Sp: 76% Se: 58%
Sp: 94% Low
No reliability test
Table 4.2.3 continued 151 K A P I T E L 4 • d I A g n o s T I K Author Year, reference Country Type of study Num- ber of obser- vers Observer reliability Popu- lation Type of lesion and prevalence Number of teeth and surfaces Method Com- parison method Outcome measure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments Verdon-
schot et al 1993 [55]* The Nether-
lands, Denmark
In vitro 4 No infor- mation Extrac-
ted 3 molars
from soldiers aged 18–20
yrs Occlusal caries, 27/81 (27%) no sign of caries, 26 (32%) small lesions in dentine, 28 (35%) large lesions in inner dentine 81 teeth
BW Histology Se, Sp, AUC
Se: 61% Sp: 79%
Low No reliability test Wenzel
et al 1991 [36]* Denmark, France
In vitro 4 Extrac-
ted 3rd molars
without visible
macro- scopic
cavitation from
18–20 yr old men
Occlusal caries,
cariesfree or caries in enamel 27/81,
dentine caries 54 81 teeth dBW &
BW Histology True posi- tive, false positive, PPV, NPV, LR+
Se: 62%
Sp: 85% PPV: 0.84 NPV: 0.51
Se: 66%
Sp: 83% PPV: 0.83 NPV: 0.51 Low
No reliability test. Not representative teeth (3rd molars) Wenzel
et al 2002 [56] Denmark In vitro 4 Extrac- ted teeth Approxi- mal caries, 82/363 (23%)
enamel caries, 55 (15%) den- tine caries 190 teeth (146 molars, 31 premolars, 13 canines) 363 approximal surfaces
dBW Histology Se, Sp, PPV, NPV
All caries Se: 27%
Sp: 94% PPV: 0.77 NPV: 0.68 Se: 37%
Sp: 96% PPV: 0.65 NPV: 0.90 Low
No reliability test
White et al 1997 [29]* USA In vitro 16 Extrac- ted teeth Approxi- mal caries 84/320 (26%) outer 1/2 enamel, 76 (24%) inner 1/2, 80 (25%) outer 1/2 dentine 80 molars, 80 premolars, 80 canines, 80 incisors 320 surfaces BW Histology (hemisec- tions)
Se, Sp, accuracy. PPV and NPV for
different prevalence examples Se: 46%
Sp: 76% Se: 58%
Sp: 94% Low
No reliability test
The table continues on the next page K A R I E S – d I A G N O S T I K , R I S K B E d ö M N I N G O C H I C K E - I N vA S I v B E H A N d L I N G 152
Author Year, reference Country Type of study Num- ber of obser- vers Observer reliability Popu- lation Type of lesion and prevalence Number of teeth and surfaces Method Com- parison method Outcome measure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments White et al 1997 [29]* USA
In vitro 16 Extrac-
ted teeth Approxi-
mal caries 84/320
(26%) outer 1/2 enamel, 76 (24%) inner 1/2, 80 (25%) outer 1/2 dentine 80 molars, 80 premolars, 80 canines and 80 incisors 320 surfaces dBW
Histology (hemisec- tions) Se, Sp,
accuracy PPV
NPV for different prevalence examples
Se: 35% Sp: 80%
Se: 52% Sp: 95%
Low No reliability test White et al 2000 [57] USA
In vitro 12 No Extrac- ted teeth Approximal caries, 19/80 in outer 1/2 enamel, 21 inner 1/2, 20 outer 1/2 dentine 40 premolars and 40 molars 80 surfaces BW Histology Se, Sp, accuracy, AUC Se: 40%
Sp: 75% Se: 61%
Sp: 91% Low
Wojtowicz et al
2003 [58] USA
In vitro 94 stu- dents
(40 senior
dental stu-
dents, 54
dental hygiene
stu- dents)
Extrac- ted,
human premo-
lar and molar
teeth Approxi-
mal caries, 10/140
enamel caries, 3 to DEJ, 26 in dentine
96 extracted, human premo- lar and molar teeth, of 140 surfaces BW Histology, scored by 2 observers indepen- dently,
consensus reached
when dis- agreement Se, Sp All caries (all students pooled):
Se: 65% Sp: 81%
Low Inexperienced observers (students). No results given for enamel lesions only. Few lesions in enamel. No reliability test Table 4.2.3 continued * Study selected because the paper was included in the review by [23]. AUC = Area under the curve; BW = Bitewing radiographs; d1 = Caries in outer half of enamel; d2 = Caries in inner half of enamel; d3 = Dentine caries; dBW = Digital bitewing radiographs; DEJ = Dentine-enamel junction; LR = Likelihood ratio; NPV = Negative predictive value; PPV = Positive predictive value; ROC = Receiver operating characteristic; Se = Sensitivity; Sp = Specificity
153 K A P I T E L 4 • d I A g n o s T I K Author Year, reference Country Type of study Num- ber of obser- vers Observer reliability Popu- lation Type of lesion and prevalence Number of teeth and surfaces Method Com- parison method Outcome measure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments White et al 1997 [29]* USA
In vitro 16 Extrac-
ted teeth Approxi-
mal caries 84/320
(26%) outer 1/2 enamel, 76 (24%) inner 1/2, 80 (25%) outer 1/2 dentine 80 molars, 80 premolars, 80 canines and 80 incisors 320 surfaces dBW
Histology (hemisec- tions) Se, Sp,
accuracy PPV
NPV for different prevalence examples
Se: 35% Sp: 80%
Se: 52% Sp: 95%
Low No reliability test White et al 2000 [57] USA
In vitro 12 No Extrac- ted teeth Approximal caries, 19/80 in outer 1/2 enamel, 21 inner 1/2, 20 outer 1/2 dentine 40 premolars and 40 molars 80 surfaces BW Histology Se, Sp, accuracy, AUC Se: 40%
Sp: 75% Se: 61%
Sp: 91% Low
Wojtowicz et al
2003 [58] USA
In vitro 94 stu- dents
(40 senior
dental stu-
dents, 54
dental hygiene
stu- dents)
Extrac- ted,
human premo-
lar and molar
teeth Approxi-
mal caries, 10/140
enamel caries, 3 to DEJ, 26 in dentine
96 extracted, human premo- lar and molar teeth, of 140 surfaces BW Histology, scored by 2 observers indepen- dently,
consensus reached
when dis- agreement Se, Sp All caries (all students pooled):
Se: 65% Sp: 81%
Low Inexperienced observers (students). No results given for enamel lesions only. Few lesions in enamel. No reliability test K A R I E S – d I A G N O S T I K , R I S K B E d ö M N I N G O C H I C K E - I N vA S I v B E H A N d L I N G 154
Table 4.2.4 Excluded studies in vivo or in vitro, conventional radiography (BW), digital radiography (dBW), fibre-optic transillumination. Author, year, reference Diagnostic method Caries, dentition Main reason for exclusion Abreu et al, 2001 [59] BW, dBW Approximal, permanent Outcome measure not applicable Anttonen et al, 2003 [60] BW Occlusal, both dentitions Not validated Ashley et al, 1998 [42]* BW, dBW, ECM, FOTI Occlusal, permanent Less than 3 examiners Ástvaldsdóttir et al, 2004 [61] BW Occlusal, permanent Biased selection Bader et al, 2001 [62] Not adequate Bader et al, 2002 [63] Not adequate Baysan et al, 2004 [64] ECM
Root, permanent Less than 3 examiners Burin et al, 2005 [65] BW Occlusal, permanent Small sample Caliskan Yanikoglu et al, 2000 [66] Ultrasound Approximal Not validated Choksi et al, 1994 [67] BW Secondary Not validated Chong et al, 2003 [68] BW, dBW Occlusal
Not validated Côrtes et al, 2000 [69] BW, FOTI Occlusal, permanent Small sample Costa et al, 2002 [70] BW Occlusal Small sample Dove, 2001 [71] Not adequate Erten et al, 2005 [72] BW, dBW Approximal, permanent Small sample Espelid et al, 1986 [73]* BW Approximal, permanent Small sample Espelid et al, 1991 [74] BW Secondary Pooled diagnoses for crown and root Feldens et al, 2003 [75] BW Approximal, primary Less than 3 examiners Firestone et al, 1998 [76]* BW Approximal, permanent Not validated Fyffe et al, 2000 [77] BW Approximal, permanent Not validated The table continues on the next page 155 K A P I T E L 4 • d I A g n o s T I K The table continues on the next page Author, year, reference Diagnostic method Caries, dentition Main reason for exclusion Güngör et al, 2005 [78] BW Approximal, permanent Small sample Haak et al, 2001 [79] BW, dBW
Approximal, permanent Not validated Haak et al, 2005 [80] dBW Approximal, permanent Outcome measure not applicable Heaven et al, 1992 [81]* BW Approximal, permanent Small sample Heinrich-Weltzien et al, 2002 [82] BW Occlusal, permanent Not validated Hewlett et al, 1993 [83] BW Secondary Not validated Hintze et al, 1998 [44]* BW, FOTI Approximal, permanent Uncertain validation Hintze et al, 2002 [84] BW, dBW
Combinations Outcome measure not applicable Hintze et al, 2002 [85] BW, dBW Combinations Outcome measure not applicable Huysmans et al, 1998 [86]* BW, ECM
Occlusal, permanent Less than 3 examiners Jacobsen et al, 2004 [87] dBW Approximal Biased selection Janhom et al, 2002 [88] dBW Approximal Outcome measure not applicable Ketley et al, 1993 [89]* BW Occlusal, primary Less than 3 examiners Khan et al, 2005 [90] BW Approximal, permanent Outcome measure not applicable Khan et al, 2004 [91] BW, dBW Approximal, permanent Outcome measure not applicable Kidd et al, 1994 [92] BW Secondary Less than 3 examiners Li et al, 2002 [93] dBW Approximal Outcome measure not applicable Ludlow et al, 2001 [94] BW Approximal, permanent Outcome measure not applicable Ludlow et al, 1999 [95] BW, dBW Approximal Outcome measure not applicable Table 4.2.4 continued The table continues on the next page K A R I E S – d I A G N O S T I K , R I S K B E d ö M N I N G O C H I C K E - I N vA S I v B E H A N d L I N G 156
Table 4.2.4 continued Author, year, reference Diagnostic method Caries, dentition Main reason for exclusion Lussi et al, 1995 [96]* BW, ECM Occlusal, permanent Small sample, less than 3 examiners Matalon et al, 2003 [97] BW Approximal, permanent Small sample McGuire et al, 1993 [98] BW Secondary Not validated Mialhe et al, 2003 [99] BW Approximal Less than 3 examiners Mileman et al, 2002 [16] BW Approximal, permanent Reported in another publication Mileman et al, 2003 [100] BW Approximal Not adequate Møystad et al, 2003 [11] dBW Approximal Outcome measure not applicable Nair et al, 2001 [101] BW, dBW
Approximal, permanent Small sample Nytun et al, 1992 [102]* Combined VI and BW Occlusal, permanent Small sample Pabla et al, 2003 [103] dBW Approximal, permanent Outcome measure not applicable Pitts et al, 1992 [104]* BW Approximal Less than 3 examiners Pretty et al, 2004 [105] All available methods
Not adequate Ramesh et al, 2001 [106] BW, dBW Combinations Not validated Ratledge et al, 2001 [107] BW Approximal, permanent Biased selection Reis et al, 2004 [108] BW Occlusal, permanent Small sample Ricketts et al, 1994 [109]* BW Occlusal, permanent Small sample Ricketts et al, 1996 [110]* ECM
Occlusal, permanent Small sample Ricketts et al, 1997 [111]* ECM Occlusal, permanent Less than 3 examiners Ricketts et al, 1997 [112]* ECM
Occlusal, permanent Less than 3 examiners Ricketts et al, 1997 [113]* ECM Occlusal, permanent Less than 3 examiners The table continues on the next page 157 K A P I T E L 4 • d I A g n o s T I K The table continues on the next page The table continues on the next page Yüklə 4,3 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|