ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Assessment and prevention of behavioural and social risk factors associated with oral cancer: protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and systematic reviews to inform Primary Care dental professionals.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Mortality and disease burden of oral cancer in China: a time-trend analysis on the China Death Surveillance Database from 2006 to 2021.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Micronuclei detection in oral cytologic smear: does it add diagnostic value?Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Smoking cessation in dental setting: a narrative review on dental professionals' attitude, preparedness, practices and barriers.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Review
- Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias.Nutrition reviews · 2022Article
- Knowledge, opinions, and practices related to oral cancer prevention and oral mucosal examination among dentists in Moldova, Belarus and Armenia: a multi-country cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- A qualitative study of attitudes to and perceptions of betel quid consumption and its oral health implications in Taiwan.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2019Article
- Feasibility and acceptance of oral human papillomavirus detection in the dental office: Results from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2019Article
- Review
- Comparison of Practices, Knowledge, Confidence, and Attitude toward Oral Cancer among Oral Health Professionals between Japan and Australia.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- How lay health workers tailor in effective health behaviour change interventions: a protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- An unusual case of tracheo-pleural fistula and cardiac metastases in oropharyngeal carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature.Cancers of the head & neck · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTobacco and alcohol are recognised as the major risk factors for both oral cavity (mouth) and oropharyngeal (throat) cancers, with increasing acceptance of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the aetiology of oropharyngeal cancers. In addition, there is a significant increased risk for oral cancer among lower socioeconomic groups, males and older age groups. There is a growing evidence for the potential role of primary care professionals in smoking cessation and reducing alcohol-related harm. However, there are uncertainties about the best approaches/strategies to assess risk factors associated with oral cancer, effective components of preventive interventions for behaviour change and implementation strategies in primary care dental settings. Thus, in order to contribute to the prevention of oral cancer effectively, dental professionals need to assess patients on the major risk factors (tobacco, alcohol and HPV/sexual behaviours) and deliver appropriate prevention, taking into account the patient's sociodemographic context.
aimThe study aims to synthesise evidence on the best practice for undertaking an assessment of major behavioural risk factors associated with oral cancer and delivering effective behaviour change preventive interventions (e.g. advice, counselling, patient recall, signposting/referral to preventive services) by dental professionals in primary care dental settings.
methodThe study involves a systematic review and evidence appraisal. We will search for clinical guidelines and systematic reviews from the following databases: Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, PubMed, TRIP and Google Scholar. We will also search websites of professional organisations/agencies and bibliographies/reference lists of selected papers. Quality will be assessed with the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) instrument for included clinical guidelines and the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and ROBIS instruments for included systematic reviews. The best practice evidence will be assessed via a narrative synthesis of extracted data, considering publication quality. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will synthesise evidence on the best practice for oral cancer risk factor assessment and prevention and evaluate the relationship between available clinical guidelines and the review evidence base. This collation of evidence will be useful for making recommendations for future intervention, research and guideline development. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015025289.
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.