Nursel AKKAYA, Ahmet Ergun KARAAĞAOĞLU, Umut ARSLAN, Hilmi KANSU, Leyla Berna ÇAĞIRANKAYA, Ayşe KANSU ÖZDEN

Sequential test selection by quantifying of the reduction in diagnostic uncertainty for the diagnosis of proximal caries

Background: In order to determine the presence or absence of a certain disease, multiple diagnostic tests may be necessary. Performance of these tests can be sequentially evaluated. Aims: The aim of the study is to determine the contribution of the test in each step, in reducing diagnostic uncertainty when multiple tests are sequentially used for the diagnosis. Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study Methods: Radiographs of seventy-three patients of the Department of Dento-Maxillofacial Radiology of Hacettepe University Faculty of Dentistry were assessed. Panoramic (PAN), full mouth intraoral (FM), and bitewing (BW) radiographs were used for the diagnosis of proximal caries in the maxillary and mandibular molar regions. Diagnostic performance of radiography was sequentially evaluated by using the reduction in diagnostic uncertainty. Results: FM provided maximum diagnostic information for ruling in potential in the maxillary and mandibular molar regions in the first step. FM provided more diagnostic information than BW radiographs for ruling in the mandibular region in the second step. In the mandibular region, BW radiographs provided more diagnostic information than FM for ruling out in the first step. Conclusion: The presented method in this study provides the clinicians with a solution for the decision of the sequential selection of diagnostic tests for the correct diagnosis of the presence or absence of a certain disease.

PDF

___

1. Weinstein S, Obuchowski NA, Lieber ML. Clinical evaluation of diagnostic tests. AJR 2005;184:14-9. [CrossRef]
2. Dendukuri N, Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2001;57:158-67. [CrossRef]
3. Metz CE, Goodenough DJ, Rossmann K. Evaluation of receiver operating characteristic curve data in terms of information theory, with applications in radiography. Radiology 1973;109:297-303.
4. Mossman D, Somoza E. Diagnostic tests and information theory. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1992;4:95-8.
5. Benish WA. Mutual information as an index of diagnostic test performance. Methods Inf Med 2003;42:260-4.
6. Johnson HA. Diagnosis by the Bit: A Method for Evaluating the Diagnostic Process. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1989;19:323-31.
7. Horton JA. Diagnostic Information as a Commodity. Clin Chem 1995;41:781-4.
8. Castro F, Leonard P, Caccamo MD, et al. Sequential test selection in the analysis of abdominal pain. Med Decis Making 1996;16: 178-83. [CrossRef]
9. Wenzel A. Dental Caries. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 6th ed. Mosby, St. Louis;2009.
10. White SC, Pharoah MJ. The evaluation and application of dental maxillofacial imaging modalities. Dent Clin N Am 2008;52: 689-705. [CrossRef]
11. Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV. Routine panoramic radiography of new adult patients in general dental practice: relevance of diagnostic yield to treatment and identification of radiographic selection criteria. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:488-95. [CrossRef]
12. Danforth RA, Clark DE. Effective dose from radiation absorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89: 236-43. [CrossRef]
13. Akkaya N, Kansu O, Kansu H, Çağırankaya LB, Arslan U. Comparing the accuracy of panoramic and intraoral radiography in the diagnosis of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:170-4. [CrossRef]
14. Choi JW. Assessment of panoramic radiography as a national oral examination tool: review of the literature. Imaging Sci Dent 2011;41:1-6. [CrossRef]
15. Steward JL, Bieser LF. Panoramic roentgenograms compared with conventional intraoral roentgenograms. Oral surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968;26:39-42. [CrossRef]
16. Ohba T, Katayama H. Comparison of orthopantomography with conventional periapical dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972;34:525-30. [CrossRef]
17. Muhammed AH, Manson-Hing LR, Ala B. A comparison of panoramic and intraoral radiographic survey in evaluating a dental clinic population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;54:108-17. [CrossRef]
18. Douglass CW, Valachovic RW, Wijesta AW, Chauncey HH, McNeil BJ. The use of panoramic radiography in the evaluation of asymptomatic adult dental patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986;61:289-96. [CrossRef]
19. Galal A, Manson-Hing L, Jamison H. A comparison of combinations od clinic and radiographic examinations in evaluation of a dental clinic population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;60:533-61. [CrossRef]
20. Molander B, Ahlqwist M, Gröndahl HG, Hollander L. Comparison of panoramic and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of caries and periapical pathology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993;22:28-32.