Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21069680›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

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

Paul Brocklehurst, Omar Kujan, Anne-Marie Glenny, Richard Oliver, Philip Sloan, Graham Ogden, Simon Shepherd

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. New Horizons and Prospects in Oral Cancer Detection.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Risk-Based Selection of Individuals for Oral Cancer Screening.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Implementation of a targeted HPV educational program in a population with HIV.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Risk Stratification System for Oral Cancer Screening.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2016
    Article
  18. Increasing opportunistic oral cancer screening examinations: findings from focus groups with general dentists in Puerto Rico.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2015
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul BrocklehurstDepartment of Dental Public Health & Primary Care, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH.
Omar Kujan
Anne-Marie Glenny
Richard Oliver
Philip Sloan
Graham Ogden
Simon Shepherd
University of Dundee · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBAl-Baath University · SYRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 20 May 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 20 May 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2010) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 20 May 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The original review identified 1389 citations and this update identified an additional 330 studies, highlighting 1719 studies for consideration. Only one study met the inclusion criteria and validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation were undertaken by six independent review authors. MAIN

resultsOne 9-year RCT has been included (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (16.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (20.7/100,000 person-years). A 43% reduction in mortality was reported between the intervention cohort (29.9/100,000 person-years) and the control arm (45.4/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant. However, this study had a number of methodological weaknesses and the associated risk of bias was high. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAlthough there is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme reduced the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals, whilst producing a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole, the evidence is limited to one study and is associated with a high risk of bias. This was compounded by the fact that the effect of cluster randomisation was not accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, no robust evidence was identified to support the use of other adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging within a primary care environment. Further randomised controlled trials are recommended to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme.

Indexed as

HumansMass ScreeningMouth NeoplasmsPhysical ExaminationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21069680
OpenAlexW4247434547

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.