SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2015
Adjunctive tests cannot replace scalpel biopsy for oral cancer diagnosis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- TNFα Signaling Is Increased in Progressing Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders and Regulates Malignant Transformation in an Oral Carcinogenesis Model.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- The prognostic value of GLUT-1 staining in the detection of malignant transformation in oral mucosa.Clinical oral investigations · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesMedline, the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Oral Health Groups Trials Register, Embase and MEDION. STUDY SELECTION: Two of the reviewers independently assessed titles abstracts and extracted data. Cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies (or consecutive series) and randomised studies of diagnostic test accuracy that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of vital staining, oral cytology, light-based detection and oral spectroscopy, blood or saliva analysis used as an adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting PMD or oral squamous cell carcinoma of the lip or oral cavity were considered. Scalpel, punch or fine needle aspiration biopsy with histological diagnosis was the reference test. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality was assessed using a modified version of QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis was used to combine the results of studies for each index test using the bivariate approach to estimate the expected values of sensitivity and specificity. Meta-regressionanalysis was undertaken to explore possible sources of heterogeneity.
resultsForty-one studies, recruiting 4002 patients were included. No single study could be classified as being at low risk of bias across all domains. Fourteen studies evaluated vital staining, 13 studies oral cytology and 13 studies light-based detection or oral spectroscopy, while six studies assessed two combined index tests. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis.
conclusionsThe overall quality of the included studies was poor. None of the adjunctive tests can be recommended as a replacement for the currently used standard of a scalpel biopsy and histological assessment. Given the relatively high values of the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for cytology, this would appear to offer the most potential. Combined adjunctive tests involving cytology warrant further investigation.
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.