Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14584006›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.

O Kujan, A M Glenny, A J Duxbury, N Thakker, P Sloan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Investigating Patient and Physician Delays in the Diagnosis of Head and Neck Cancers: a Canadian Perspective.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

O KujanOral Medicine, Oral Pathology, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH.
A M Glenny
A J Duxbury
N Thakker
P Sloan
University Dental Hospital of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the second half of the last century has generated a rich and complex body of knowledge, the burden of oral cancer is still largely present. As with other cancers, there has been a strong debate whether screening strategies for oral cancer such as visual examination, the use of toluidine blue or newer methods such as brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging are effective in reducing the mortality rate associated with oral cancer.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 1966 to September 2002, The Cochrane Library - Issue 2, 2002), bibliographies, handsearching of specific journals and contact authors were used to identify published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of screening for oral cancer or potentially premalignant oral lesions using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The search found 100 citations and these have been reviewed. One randomised controlled trial of screening strategies for oral cancer was identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation have been undertaken by two independent reviewers. MAIN

resultsOne ongoing randomised controlled trial has been included (n = 13 clusters: 153,708 eligible subjects, 130,799 included subjects). There was no difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (21.2/1000,000 person years) and the control group (21.3/100,000 person years). However this study has some methodological weaknesses. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsGiven the limitation of evidence (only one included randomised controlled trial) and the potential methodological weakness in the included study, it is valid to say that there is no evidence to support or refute the use of a visual examination as a method of screening for oral cancer using a visual examination in the general population. Furthermore, no robust evidence exists to suggest other methods of screening, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy, are either beneficial or harmful. Further cost-effective, high quality studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of screening are required. In addition, studies to elucidate the natural history of oral cancer, prevention methods and the effectiveness of opportunistic screening in high risk groups are needed.

Indexed as

HumansMass ScreeningMouth NeoplasmsPhysical ExaminationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID14584006
OpenAlexW4230121579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.