ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2014
Incidence and localization of abnormal mucosa findings in patients consulting ENT outpatient clinics and data analysis of a cancer registry.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total Laryngectomy-Still Cutting-Edge?Cancers · 2021Review
- [Laryngectomy-still state of the art?]HNO · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Prevention of upper aerodigestive tract cancer through active search strategies and use of equipped propaedeutics.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For patients without symptoms and at risk, there is no established early detection program to discover carcinomas of the upper aerodigestive tract in the sense of secondary prevention. Such type of prevention seems even more desirable because the chances for a cure and the quality of life are strongly dependent on the stage of the tumor and the time of the initial diagnosis. Six hundred and eight patients without symptoms but at least one of the self-reported risk factors "smoking", "alcohol consumption" or "reflux" were examined with an endoscope or an optical microscope for pathological findings in the upper aerodigestive tract once a year. In addition, the incidence of malignancies of the upper aerodigestive tract between 2001 and 2010 was determined through the Cancer Registry of Schleswig-Holstein. Tissue samples were taken from 18 of the 608 patients. Eleven patients (1.8%) had a squamous cell carcinoma. Another patient suffered from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and one from larynx tuberculosis. The ratio of detected malignancies in the oral cavity and the oropharynx on the one hand and the hypopharynx and larynx, which can only be examined by endoscopes, on the other hand were in our cohorts and in our survey according to the cancer registry was 5/6. The above-described methods allow examining risk patients easily and safely. According to current publications, the ratio of the found malignancies exceeds the expected ratio significantly, which presumably was caused by the examination targeting patients at risk. Due to the expanded examination area using optical instruments more than doubles the rate of discoverable malignancies compared to the limitations posed by the examination of directly visible areas of the oral cavity of the oropharynx.
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.