ReviewHead and neck pathology2011
The challenges of defining oral cancer: analysis of an ontological approach.
Review in Head and neck pathology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Review
- Factors Associated With Oral Cancer Adverse Outcome at the Rwanda Military Hospital, a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Article
- Co-delivery of 5-Fluorouracil and Curcumin Nanohybrid Formulations for Improved Chemotherapy Against Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2018Article
- Oral cancer - CPD and the GDC.British dental journal · 2018Article
- The changing epidemiology of oral cancer: definitions, trends, and risk factors.British dental journal · 2018Review
- Preventive effect of celecoxib use against cancer progression and occurrence of oral squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Chemoprotective effect of nanocurcumin on 5-fluorouracil-induced-toxicity toward oral cancer treatment.National journal 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important inconsistency currently exists in the literature on oral cancer. Reviewing this literature, one finds that the term oral cancer is defined and described with great variation. In a search in PubMed, at least 17 different terms were found for titles of papers reporting data on oral cancer. The variability of the terms used for designating anatomic regions and type of malignant neoplasms for reporting oral cancer has hampered the ability of researchers to effectively retrieve information concerning oral cancer. Therefore, it is sometimes extremely difficult to provide meaningful comparisons among various studies of oral cancer. Recently, a new ontological strategy that is rooted in consensus-based controlled vocabularies has been proposed to improve the consistency of data in dental research (Smith et al. in J Am Dent Assoc 141:1173-1175, 2010). In this paper, we analyzed the terminology dilemma on oral cancer and explained the current situation. We proposed a possible solution to the dilemma using an ontology-based approach. The advantages for applying this strategy are also discussed.
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.