Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND: Multivariable prediction models are used in oral health care to identify individuals with an increased likelihood of caries increment. The outcomes of the models should help to manage individualized interventions and to determine the periodicity of service. The objective was to review and critically appraise studies of multivariable prediction models of caries increment. METHODS: Longitudinal studies that developed or validated prediction models of caries and expressed caries increment as a function of at least three predictors were included. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science supplemented with reference lists of included studies were searched. Two reviewers independently extracted data using CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) and assessed risk of bias and concern regarding applicability using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASessment Tool). Predictors were analysed and model performance was recalculated as estimated positive (LR +) and negative likelihood ratios (LR −) based on sensitivity and specificity presented in the studies included. RESULTS: Among the 765 reports identified, 21 studies providing 66 prediction models fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Over 150 candidate predictors were considered, and 31 predictors remained in studies of final developmental models: caries experience, mutans streptococci in saliva, fluoride supplements, and visible dental plaque being the most common predictors. Predictive performances varied, providing LR + and LR − ranges of 0.78–10.3 and 0.0–1.1, respectively. Only four models of coronal caries and one root caries model scored LR + values of at least 5. All studies were assessed as having high risk of bias, generally due to insufficient number of outcomes in relation to candidate predictors and considerable uncertainty regarding predictor thresholds and measurements. Concern regarding applicability was low overall. CONCLUSIONS: The review calls attention to several methodological deficiencies and the significant heterogeneity observed across the studies ruled out meta-analyses. Flawed or distorted study estimates lead to uncertainty about the prediction, which limits the models’ usefulness in clinical decision-making. The modest performance of most models implies that alternative predictors should be considered, such as bacteria with acid tolerant properties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD#152,467 April 28, 2020 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02298-y.