ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2011
Assessment of tissue autofluorescence and reflectance for oral cavity cancer screening.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical assessment to screen for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Targeted Screening Strategies for Head and Neck Cancer: A Global Review of Evidence, Technologies, and Cost-Effectiveness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Fluorescence Imaging-Assessed Surgical Margin Detection in Head and Neck Oncology by Passive and Active Targeting.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Economic Evaluation of Oral Cancer Screening Programs: Review of Outcomes and Study Designs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Screening for mouth cancer: the pros and cons of a national programme.British dental journal · 2018Review
- In-vivo optical imaging in head and neck oncology: basic principles, clinical applications and future directions.International journal of oral science · 2018Review
- An Overview on Current Non-invasive Diagnostic Devices in Oral Oncology.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Review
- Fluorescence Imaging for Cancer Screening and Surveillance.Molecular imaging and biology · 2017Review
- The status of contemporary image-guided modalities in oncologic surgery.Annals of surgery · 2015Review
- The clinical effectiveness of reflectance optical spectroscopy for the in vivo diagnosis of oral lesions.International journal of oral science · 2014Article
- Influence of fluorescence on screening decisions for oral mucosal lesions in community dental practices.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2014Article
- Diagnostic aids for detection of oral precancerous conditions.International journal of oral science · 2013Review
- Advances in optical adjunctive AIDS for visualisation and detection of oral malignant and potentially malignant lesions.International journal of dentistry · 2013Review
- Efficacy of Autofluorescence in Detection of Tobacco-associated Oral Mucosal Lesions - A Systematic Review.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for clinical use, the utility of handheld tissue reflectance and autofluorescence devices for screening head and neck cancer patients is poorly defined. There is limited published evidence regarding the efficacy of these devices. The authors investigated the sensitivity and specificity of these modalities compared with standard examination. STUDY
designProspective, cross-sectional analysis.
settingTertiary care medical center. SUBJECTS AND
methodsPatients who were treated previously for head and neck cancer (n = 88) between 2009 and 2010 were included. Patients were screened using white light visualization (standard of care) and compared with tissue reflectance and autofluorescence visualization. Screening results were compared with biopsy or long-term follow-up.
resultsAutofluorescence visualization had a specificity of 81% and a sensitivity of 50% for detecting oral cavity cancer, whereas white light visualization had a specificity of 98% and a sensitivity of 50%. Tissue reflectance visualization had low sensitivity (0%) and good specificity (86%). The power of this study was insufficient to compare the positive and negative predictive values of standard white light examination (50% and 98%, respectively) to tissue autofluorescence (11% and 97%) or reflectance (0% and 95%). In addition, stratification by previous radiation therapy found no statistically significant difference in screening results.
conclusionStandard clinical lighting has a higher specificity than tissue reflectance and autofluorescence visualization for detection of disease in patients with a history of head and neck cancer. This study does not support the added costs associated with these devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.