Table 5 Comparison and quality of DPR-CBCT diagnostic tests vs Real resorption
From: Does endodontics influence radiological detection of external root resorption? an in vitro study
Diagnostic methods | N | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC % (CI %) | Likelihood ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LR +  | LR- | |||||
DPR vs Real | 120 | 90.7 | 100 | 95.4 (91–99) | 999 | 0.09 |
CBCT vs Real | 120 | 100 | 100 | 100 (100–100) | 999 | 0.00 |
Non-endodontic DPR vs Real | 60 | 100 | 100 | 100 (100–100) | 999 | 0.00 |
Endodontic DPR vs Real | 60 | 81.5 | 100 | 90.7 (83–98) | 999 | 0.19 |
Non-endodontic CBCT vs Real | 60 | 100 | 100 | 100 (100–100) | 999 | 0.00 |
Endodontic CBCT vs Real | 60 | 100 | 100 | 100 (100–100) | 999 | 0.00 |
Endodontic DPR 0.12 mm vs Real | 20 | 72.2 | 100 | 86.1 (72–100) | 999 | 0.28 |
Endodontic DPR 0.18 mm vs Real | 20 | 75 | 100 | 91.7 (80–100) | 999 | 0.17 |
Endodontic DPR 0.20 mm vs Real | 20 | 88.9 | 100 | 94.4 (85–100) | 999 | 0.11 |