Fundamental methodological issues

As someone who has spent over 35 years in cariology research, with more than 20 of those years investigating carious lesion activity assessment, and as a consultant to a company which has

developed a novel technology aimed at differentiating between active and inactive carious lesions, I was particularly interested in the above referenced article by Amaechi et al. in BDJ

Open. A number of methodological issues in the article raise concerns about the validity of the results as reported. The most significant of these issues is the fact that a single examiner

carried out the ICDAS exam, selected the study lesions on the basis of that, then immediately carried out the LC Rinse assessment—in other words, the same person identified and selected the

test and control lesions, then immediately carried out the test exam, after that reference exam, i.e. there was no blinding of the test examiner to which lesions were designated in the

reference examination as active, inactive or sound, when carrying out the test examination—this leaves the study open to a high and significant risk of examiner bias. The close proximity in

time of the reference and test examinations would only serve to increase the likelihood of such bias. The fact that the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and Odds Ratio figures

of the “LC Rinse” assessment for the “Selected study” surfaces fell significantly when the “Full dentition” surfaces were assessed suggests that there was indeed significant bias present

when the “Selected study” sites were assessed. A related issue of concern is the lack of mention in the article about how exactly the authors defined the “qualitative positive test response”

of the LC Rinse signal—the criteria used for designating a positive or negative signal are not provided. There is no mention of “areas of interest” or how the examiner ensured that any

increased fluorescence signal exactly corresponded spatially to the specific surface area of each lesion previously identified. This is of particular relevance in relation to figure 1 in the

article, in which almost all of the increased yellow fluorescent light signal visible on the three upper incisors in the post-rinse image appears to emanate from curved lines corresponding

to the gingival crevices rather than the areas of decalcification visible in the pre-rinse images. A further issue concerns the distribution of the relative numbers of the separate Occlusal

and Free Smooth Surface (FSS) lesions in the Selected Study Teeth samples—this distribution could significantly bias the outcome of the study analysis, since it is relatively easier to

visually assess anterior teeth FSS lesions than posterior teeth occlusal lesions. The article does not specify exactly how the “test and control sites were then selected” in terms of

occlusal or FSS sites nor does it provide the distribution figures for the occlusal and free smooth surface sites. This site distribution factor may have also contributed to the dramatic

order of magnitude fall in the value between the “Selected study teeth” assessment and “Full dentition” assessment values for the Odds Ratios noted in the article—Table 4. The issue of

examiner bias in gathering data to assess novel technologies for disease assessment is a critical issue in the development of the methodology used in such research. The methodology reported

in the Amaechi et al. article appears to have been open to a significant level of examiner bias, which fundamentally undermines the results as presented. The authors of the original

manuscript have been invited to reply. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Consultant - Chris Longbottom, Newport-on-Tay, DD68DW, United Kingdom Chris Longbottom Authors * Chris

Longbottom View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Chris Longbottom. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as

long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third

party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the

article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright

holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Longbottom, C. Fundamental

methodological issues. _BDJ Open_ 9, 33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00158-4 Download citation * Received: 21 June 2023 * Accepted: 28 June 2023 * Published: 24 July 2023 *

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00158-4 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is

not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative