Sbu • Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Yüklə 4,3 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
Author Year, reference Country Type of study Blinding Num- ber of obser- vers Obser- ver relia- bility Popu- lation Caries preval- ence and type of lesions No of indivi- duals Number of teeth Drop- out/ missing data Method or tech- nique Com- parison method Out- come meas- ure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments Studies of extracted teeth Occlusal Deery
et al 1995 [20] United Kingdom
Validity Yes
7 Kappa Inter:
0.53 Not
reported 3%
sound 43%
enamel 54%
dentine 112 teeth Not reported
VI Hemi-
section Se, Sp,
PPV, NPV,
accuracy Se: 60%
Sp: 50% PPV: 0.97 NPV: 0.04 Accuracy: 0.60 Se: 12%
Sp: 97% PPV: 0.81 NPV: 0.48 Accuracy: 0.50 High
Ekstrand et al
1997 [3] Denmark
Validity, reliability Yes 3
Inter: 0.62
Intra: 0.80
Molars and pre-
molars, 50 from
Den- mark,
50 from United
Kingdom 24% sound 13% <0.5 enamel
24% <1/3 dentine
23% <2/3 dentine
16% >2/3 dentine
100 teeth, 80 molars, 20 pre-
molars Not
reported VI Histo- logy Se, Sp,
perfect agree-
ment, Spear-
man cor- relation
– Se: 95%
Sp: 90% Perfect
agreement: 0.68
Spearman correlation: 0.90 High
Based on 2 x 2 tables for any caries:
Se: 91% (86–94)
Sp: 90% (81–95)
Forgie et al
2002 [8] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
7 Kappa Inter
VI: 0.73
Inter VIM:
0.63 Teeth
from general
practi- tioners
30 (43%) enamel
39 (57%) dentine
5 mouth models
with 40 pre-
molars, 40
molars, and 20
canines Not
reported VI Histo- logy Se, Sp,
PPV –
VI: 41% VIM: 53%
Sp VI: 92%
VIM: 89% PPV VI: 0.97
VIM: 0.97 Medium
No sound teeth were included Forgie
et al 2003 [21] United Kingdom
Validity Not
reported 6
enamel Inter
VI: 0.71
Inter VIC:
0.65 Inter
VIV: 0.57
Teeth from
general practi-
tioners 14% sound 37% D1 49% D3
5 mouth models
with 40 pre-
molars, 40
molars, and 20
canines Not
reported VI VIC VIV Histo-
logy Se, Sp
Se VI: 43%
VIC: 68% VIV: 77%
Sp VI: 92%
VIC: 64% VIV: 60%
Se VI: 27%
VIC: 42% VIV: 60%
Sp VI: 97%
VIC: 99% VIV: 77%
High 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 94
Kordic et al
2003 [4] Switzer-
land Validity
Yes 4
Inter: 0.6–0.75
10– 38 yrs,
premo- lars and molars 21% sound 61% enamel
18% den- tine
61 teeth Not
reported VI SEM, quanti- tative
image analysis
Se, Sp, ROC,
accuracy, PPV,
PNV Se: 100%
Sp: 38% PPV: 0.29 NPV: 1.00 Se: 82%
Sp: 68% PPV: 0.31 NPV: 0.96 High
Lussi 1991 [6]
Switzer- land
Validity, relia-
bility, additive
Not reported
34 12 of 34 obser- vers
tested. Kappa Inter:
0.47 Intra:
0.4–0.75 Molars
and pre- molars
from a pool
7 (11%) sound
17 (28%) subsurface lesion 3 (0.5%) enamel 34
(60.5%) dentine
61 teeth, 54
molars, 7 pre-
molars Not
reported VI VIP Hemi- section
Se, Sp, kappa,
% cor- rect dia- gnoses –
Sp: 84% Kappa: 0.23 Correct diagnoses: 41.8% High
Lussi 1993 [18] Switzer- land
Validity, relia-
bility, additive
Not reported
10–26 Kappa Inter:
0.14– 0.24
Intra: 0.49
Molars and pre-
molars from a
pool 21 (34%) sound 9 (14%)
enamel 33 (52%) dentine 63
teeth, 52 molars,
11 pre- molars
Not reported
VI VIM
VIP Histo-
logy and dying
Se, Sp, LR – Se VI: 12%
VIM: 20% VIP: 14%
Sp VI: 93%
VIM: 89% VIP: 93%
LR VI: 1.84
VIM: 1.86 VIP: 2.05 High
Fyffe et al 2000 [7] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
10 experi-
enced, 10
inexpe- rienced
Kappa Intra
enamel: 0.62
Intra dentine: 0.65 Molars
and pre- molars,
occlusal-, buccal-, lingual surfaces
10% sound
8% <0.5 enamel
28% >0.5 enamel
44% <0.5 dentine
10% >0.5 dentine
20 mouth models
with 160 teeth,
800 sur- faces
Not reported
VI DSTM
Histo- logy
Se, Sp, PPV,
NPV Se: 48%
Sp: 76% PPV: 0.66 NPV: 0.59 Se: 10%
Sp: 98% PPV: 0.69 NPV: 0.78 Medium
Occlusal, buccal and lingual not separated The table continues on the next page 95 K A P I T E L 4 • d I A g n o s T I K Kordic et al
2003 [4] Switzer-
land Validity
Yes 4
Inter: 0.6–0.75
10– 38 yrs,
premo- lars and molars 21% sound 61% enamel
18% den- tine
61 teeth Not
reported VI SEM, quanti- tative
image analysis
Se, Sp, ROC,
accuracy, PPV,
PNV Se: 100%
Sp: 38% PPV: 0.29 NPV: 1.00 Se: 82%
Sp: 68% PPV: 0.31 NPV: 0.96 High
Lussi 1991 [6]
Switzer- land
Validity, relia-
bility, additive
Not reported
34 12 of 34 obser- vers
tested. Kappa Inter:
0.47 Intra:
0.4–0.75 Molars
and pre- molars
from a pool
7 (11%) sound
17 (28%) subsurface lesion 3 (0.5%) enamel 34
(60.5%) dentine
61 teeth, 54
molars, 7 pre-
molars Not
reported VI VIP Hemi- section
Se, Sp, kappa,
% cor- rect dia- gnoses –
Sp: 84% Kappa: 0.23 Correct diagnoses: 41.8% High
Lussi 1993 [18] Switzer- land
Validity, relia-
bility, additive
Not reported
10–26 Kappa Inter:
0.14– 0.24
Intra: 0.49
Molars and pre-
molars from a
pool 21 (34%) sound 9 (14%)
enamel 33 (52%) dentine 63
teeth, 52 molars,
11 pre- molars
Not reported
VI VIM
VIP Histo-
logy and dying
Se, Sp, LR – Se VI: 12%
VIM: 20% VIP: 14%
Sp VI: 93%
VIM: 89% VIP: 93%
LR VI: 1.84
VIM: 1.86 VIP: 2.05 High
Fyffe et al 2000 [7] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
10 experi-
enced, 10
inexpe- rienced
Kappa Intra
enamel: 0.62
Intra dentine: 0.65 Molars
and pre- molars,
occlusal-, buccal-, lingual surfaces
10% sound
8% <0.5 enamel
28% >0.5 enamel
44% <0.5 dentine
10% >0.5 dentine
20 mouth models
with 160 teeth,
800 sur- faces
Not reported
VI DSTM
Histo- logy
Se, Sp, PPV,
NPV Se: 48%
Sp: 76% PPV: 0.66 NPV: 0.59 Se: 10%
Sp: 98% PPV: 0.69 NPV: 0.78 Medium
Occlusal, buccal and lingual not separated 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 96
Author Year, reference Country Type of study Blinding Num- ber of obser- vers Obser- ver relia- bility Popu- lation Caries preval- ence and type of lesions No of indivi- duals Number of teeth Drop- out/ missing data Method or tech- nique Com- parison method Out- come meas- ure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments Approximal Tveit et al 1994 [22] Norway
Validity, reliability Yes 3, con-
sensus after-
wards Kappa:
0.72– 0.75
Molars and pre-
molars from a
pool Not
reported, sound-D4
131 teeth, 94 molars, 37 pre-
molars Not
reported VI Grinding, consen- sus of
histology Se, Sp
Se: 92% Sp: 69%
Se: 44% Sp: 97%
Medium Based on 2 x 2 tables for any
caries: Se: 60% (31–83) Sp: 92%
(86–95) Forgie et al 2002 [8] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
7 Kappa:
VI 0.73 VIM 0.63
Teeth from
general practi-
tioners 69 teeth
30 (43%) enamel
39 (57%) dentine
5 mouth models
with 40 premo-
lars, 40 molars,
and 20 canines
Not reported
VI VIM
Histo- logy
Se, Sp, PPV
– Se VI: 21%
VIM: 31% Sp VI: 97%
VIM: 95% PPV VI: 85%
VIM: 81% Medium
No sound teeth were included Fyffe et al 2000 [7] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
10 experi-
enced, 10
inexpe- rienced
Kappa Enamel:
0.62 Dentine: 0.65 Molars
and pre- molars,
occlusal-, buccal-, lingual surfaces
Approx- imately:
63% sound
12% <0.5 enamel
4% >0.5 enamel
2% <0.5 dentine
3% >0.5 dentine
16% over- lap etc
20 mouth models
with 160 teeth,
800 sur- faces
Not reported
VI DSTM
Histo- logy
Se, Sp, PPV,
NPV Se: 19%
Sp: 91% PPV: 0.34 NPV: 0.81 Se: 18%
Sp: 98% PPV: 0.39 NPV: 0.97 High
The table continues on the next page 97 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 Blinding Num- ber of obser- vers Obser- ver relia- bility Popu- lation Caries preval- ence and type of lesions No of indivi- duals Number of teeth Drop- out/ missing data Method or tech- nique Com- parison method Out- come meas- ure Results enamel caries Results dentine caries Study quality and relevance Comments Approximal Tveit et al 1994 [22] Norway
Validity, reliability Yes 3, con-
sensus after-
wards Kappa:
0.72– 0.75
Molars and pre-
molars from a
pool Not
reported, sound-D4
131 teeth, 94 molars, 37 pre-
molars Not
reported VI Grinding, consen- sus of
histology Se, Sp
Se: 92% Sp: 69%
Se: 44% Sp: 97%
Medium Based on 2 x 2 tables for any
caries: Se: 60% (31–83) Sp: 92%
(86–95) Forgie et al 2002 [8] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
7 Kappa:
VI 0.73 VIM 0.63
Teeth from
general practi-
tioners 69 teeth
30 (43%) enamel
39 (57%) dentine
5 mouth models
with 40 premo-
lars, 40 molars,
and 20 canines
Not reported
VI VIM
Histo- logy
Se, Sp, PPV
– Se VI: 21%
VIM: 31% Sp VI: 97%
VIM: 95% PPV VI: 85%
VIM: 81% Medium
No sound teeth were included Fyffe et al 2000 [7] United
Kingdom Validity
Not reported
10 experi-
enced, 10
inexpe- rienced
Kappa Enamel:
0.62 Dentine: 0.65 Molars
and pre- molars,
occlusal-, buccal-, lingual surfaces
Approx- imately:
63% sound
12% <0.5 enamel
4% >0.5 enamel
2% <0.5 dentine
3% >0.5 dentine
16% over- lap etc
20 mouth models
with 160 teeth,
800 sur- faces
Not reported
VI DSTM
Histo- logy
Se, Sp, PPV,
NPV Se: 19%
Sp: 91% PPV: 0.34 NPV: 0.81 Se: 18%
Sp: 98% PPV: 0.39 NPV: 0.97 High
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 98
Yüklə 4,3 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|