Fulltext - SBU

Predictor
variables
Validating
criteria
Statistical
methods
Results
Sensitivity and specificity
Study
quality
and relevance
Comments
Included significant
predictors
1. Any risk
predictor model
(grade 1: education
– head of
house-hold, use
fluoride tablets,
LB in saliva, gut
feeling)
(grade 5: baseline
DMFS, white spot
lesions, sound
permanent surfaces,
LB in saliva,
gut feeling)
1. Any risk
≥1 new
DMFS
2. High risk
Aiken: 4–5
new DMFS
Portland:
2–3 new
DMFS
Proportion
high risk:
Not stated
Log
regression,
Se, Sp,
PPV,
NPV
Any risk prediction model
Aiken
Se: 80–84%; Sp: 54–61%;
PPV: 0.73–0.78; NPV:
0.64–0.69
Portland
Se: 66–76%; Sp: 71–78%; PPV:
0.57–0.68; NPV: 0.78–0.84
High risk prediction model
Aiken
Se: 59–62%; Sp: 81–83%;
PPV: 0.48–51; NPV: 0.86–88
Portland
Se: 59–62%; Sp: 84%; PPV:
0.47–0.5; NPV: 0.89–0.9
Same
material
as Disney
1992 [11]
Modelling
data
2. High risk
predictor model
(including both
etiological and
other risk factors)
3. Any risk
etiologic model
(including only
etiological factors;
tooth morphology,
sound
permanent tooth
surfaces, mean
plaque score,
MS, LB in saliva)
Any risk etiologic model
Aiken
Se: 74–81%; Sp: 50–55%;
PPV: 0.68–0.75; NPV:
0.58–0.62
Portland
Se: 59–69%; Sp: 65–74%; PPV:
0.51–0.62; NPV: 0.71–0.8
Se+Sp ≤147% in any of the
models
Any risk prediction model
gave highest Se (80–84%)
and PPV
High risk prediction model
gave the highest Sp (81–84%)
and NPV
The table continues on the next page
KAPITEL 5 • Riskbedömning
241