Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20714910›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2011

Effectiveness of autofluorescence to identify suspicious oral lesions--a prospective, blinded clinical trial.

Felix Peter Koch, Peer W Kaemmerer, Stefan Biesterfeld, Martin Kunkel, Wilfried Wagner

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Autofluorescence Image-Guided Endoscopy in the Management of Upper Aerodigestive Tract Tumors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Felix Peter KochOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. koch@mkg.klinik.uni-mainz.de
Peer W Kaemmerer
Stefan Biesterfeld
Martin Kunkel
Wilfried Wagner
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEUniversitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regular screening through white light inspection of the entire oral mucosa is the most important examination method to identify precancerous lesions and early oral carcinoma. Additionally, the physiologic autofluorescence of the oral mucosa has been described as a novel screening method for the detection of mucosal lesions that are not visible by white light. This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the autofluorescence examination. Seventy-eight patients were examined in this study. All of them suffered from suspicious oral mucosal lesions. Two different investigation methods were applied: the standard examination by white light and an examination by a novel light source of 400 nm that evoked a green light emission (>500 nm) in normal mucosa. It was proposed that malignant oral mucosal lesions show different autofluorescence characteristics than the green autofluorescence of healthy mucosa. Red autofluorescence indicated SCC with a sensitivity of 20% and a specificity of 98%. The results showed that dysplasia and carcinoma could be identified with a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 18% by using the autofluorescence method. The sensitivity decreased according to the grade of mucosal keratosis and was influenced by the localisation of the lesion. In conclusion, benign as well as malignant oral lesions could not be distinguished by a diminished autofluorescence signal. A red autofluorescence signal, however, could indicate cancerous processes of the oral mucosa.

Indexed as

BiopsyCarcinoma, Squamous CellErythemaErythroplasiaFemaleFluorescenceGingival NeoplasmsHumansLeukoplakia, OralLichen Planus, OralLightMaleMiddle AgedMouth MucosaMouth NeoplasmsOral Ulcer

Identifiers

PMID20714910
OpenAlexW2041223325

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.