Identifying and Avoiding Risk of Bias in Caries Diagnostic Studies

Overview

Journal J Clin Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2021 Aug 7

PMID 34362007

Citations 7

Authors

Jan Kuhnisch

Mila Janjic Rankovic

Svetlana Kapor

Ina Schuler

Felix Krause

Stavroula Michou

Kim Ekstrand

Florin Eggmann

Klaus W Neuhaus

Adrian Lussi

Marie-Charlotte Huysmans

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Caries diagnostic studies differ with respect to their design, included patients/tooth samples, use of diagnostic and reference methods, calibration, blinding and data reporting. Such heterogeneity makes comparisons between studies difficult and could represent a substantial risk of bias (RoB) when it is not identified. Therefore, the present report aims to describe the development and background of a RoB assessment tool for caries diagnostic studies. The expert group developed and agreed to use a RoB assessment tool during three workshops. Here, existing instruments (e.g., QUADAS 2 and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual) influenced the hierarchy and phrasing of the signalling questions that were adapted to the specific dental purpose. The tailored RoB assessment tool that was created consists of 16 signalling questions that are organized in four domains. This tool considers the selection/spectrum bias (1), the bias of the index (2) and reference tests (3), and the bias of the study flow and data analysis (4) and can be downloaded from the journal website. This paper explores possible sources of heterogeneity and bias in caries diagnostic studies and summarizes the relevant methodological aspects.

Citing Articles

Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Model for Early Childhood Caries Detection in Dental Photographs.

Schwarzmaier J, Frenkel E, Neumayr J, Ammar N, Kessler A, Schwendicke F J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274428 PMC: 11396146. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175215.

ORCA-EFCD consensus report on clinical recommendation for caries diagnosis. Paper I: caries lesion detection and depth assessment.

Kuhnisch J, Aps J, Splieth C, Lussi A, Jablonski-Momeni A, Mendes F Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(4):227.

PMID: 38514502 PMC: 10957694. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05597-3.

Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ammar N, Kuhnisch J Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2024; 60:128-136.

PMID: 38450159 PMC: 10917640. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.02.001.

The Dentist's Ability to Detect Different Restorative Procedures on Periapical Radiographs-Results from a Reliability Study.

Wulk A, Meusburger T, Dujic H, Hickel R, Kessler A, Heck K Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(3).

PMID: 36767984 PMC: 9915428. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20032619.

Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sabbagh H, Khazaei Y, Baumert U, Hoffmann L, Wichelhaus A, Janjic Rankovic M J Clin Med. 2022; 11(9).

PMID: 35566695 PMC: 9099689. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092568.

References

Schwendicke F, Splieth C, Breschi L, Banerjee A, Fontana M, Paris S . When to intervene in the caries process? An expert Delphi consensus statement. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23(10):3691-3703. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03058-w. View

Rodrigues J, Neuhaus K, Diniz M, Hug I, Stich H, Karlsson L . Comparison among gold standard techniques used for the validation of methods for occlusal caries detection. Microsc Res Tech. 2011; 75(5):605-8. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.21097. View

Poorterman J, Aartman I, Kieft J, Kalsbeek H . Value of bite-wing radiographs in a clinical epidemiological study and their effect on the DMFS index. Caries Res. 2000; 34(2):159-63. DOI: 10.1159/000016584. View

Bland J, Altman D . Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22(1):85-93. DOI: 10.1002/uog.122. View

Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S, Deeks J, Reitsma J . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. View

Hajian-Tilaki K . Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014; 48:193-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.013. View

Schwendicke F, Stolpe M, Meyer-Lueckel H, Paris S . Detecting and treating occlusal caries lesions: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 94(2):272-80. PMC: 4438735. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514561260. View

Kuhnisch J, Bucher K, Henschel V, Albrecht A, Garcia-Godoy F, Mansmann U . Diagnostic performance of the universal visual scoring system (UniViSS) on occlusal surfaces. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 15(2):215-23. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0390-1. View

Francescut P, Zimmerli B, Lussi A . Influence of different storage methods on laser fluorescence values: a two-year study. Caries Res. 2006; 40(3):181-5. DOI: 10.1159/000092223. View

10.

Bujang M, Adnan T . Requirements for Minimum Sample Size for Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(10):YE01-YE06. PMC: 5121784. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18129.8744. View

11.

Buderer N . Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Acad Emerg Med. 1996; 3(9):895-900. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03538.x. View

12.

Donner A, Rotondi M . Sample size requirements for interval estimation of the kappa statistic for interobserver agreement studies with a binary outcome and multiple raters. Int J Biostat. 2011; 6(1):Article 31. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1275. View

13.

Souza-Zaroni W, Ciccone J, Souza-Gabriel A, Ramos R, Corona S, Palma-Dibb R . Validity and reproducibility of different combinations of methods for occlusal caries detection: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res. 2006; 40(3):194-201. DOI: 10.1159/000092225. View

14.

Rosa M, Schambeck V, Dondossola E, Alexandre M, Tuon L, Grande A . Laser fluorescence of caries detection in permanent teeth in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2016; 9(4):213-224. DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12227. View

15.

de Souza A, Leal S, Chaves S, Bronkhorst E, Frencken J, Creugers N . The Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) instrument: construct validation. Eur J Oral Sci. 2014; 122(2):149-53. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12116. View

16.

Gimenez T, Piovesan C, Braga M, Raggio D, Deery C, Ricketts D . Visual Inspection for Caries Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015; 94(7):895-904. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515586763. View

17.

Ekstrand K, Ricketts D, Kidd E . Reproducibility and accuracy of three methods for assessment of demineralization depth of the occlusal surface: an in vitro examination. Caries Res. 1997; 31(3):224-31. DOI: 10.1159/000262404. View

18.

Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

19.

Huth K, Neuhaus K, Gygax M, Bucher K, Crispin A, Paschos E . Clinical performance of a new laser fluorescence device for detection of occlusal caries lesions in permanent molars. J Dent. 2008; 36(12):1033-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.08.013. View

20.

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View