Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30903116›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2019

Another oral cancer clinical guideline - but does it propose changes to dental practice?

Lauren Crossan, David I Conway

Open access · greenAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren CrossanNHS Ayrshire and Arran, Ayr, Scotland. ebd@nature.com.
David I ConwayUniversity of Glasgow Dental School, Glasgow, Scotland.
NHS Ayrshire and Arran · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scope and purpose This guideline concerns patients with no lesions, innocuous or nonsuspicious lesions, lesions suspected to be potentially malignant as well as malignant lesions of the oral cavity. The audience for this guideline is health care workers who examine the mouth as well as community dental health co-ordinators and policy makers. Methodology The Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation reporting checklist II and the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist were followed and the guideline is partly informed by systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. Studies assessing patients' values and preferences were also considered. The process of moving from the evidence to decisions and the formulation was guided by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).Review and Updating Updates for this guideline will be conducted every five years or when new emerging evidence indicates a potential change in the recommendation statements from the expert panel. Any updated versions of this guideline will be available at the ADA Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry's website: www.ebd.ada Recommendations The expert panel developed six conditional recommendations, all based on evidence rated as low to very low quality using GRADE. 1. For patients with a clinically evident oral mucosal lesion with an unknown clinical diagnosis considered to be seemingly innocuous or nonsuspicious of malignancy, or other symptoms, clinicians should follow up periodically to determine the need for further evaluation. If the lesion has not resolved and the clinical diagnosis of a potentially malignant disorder cannot be ruled out, then clinicians should perform a biopsy of the lesion or refer the patient to a specialist.2. For patients with a clinically evident oral mucosal lesion considered to be suspicious of a potentially malignant or malignant disorder, or other symptoms, clinicians should perform a biopsy of the lesion or provide immediate referral to a specialist.3. Cytologic adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders among adult patients with clinically evident, seemingly innocuous or suspicious lesions are not recommended. Should a patient decline the clinician's recommendation for performing a biopsy of the lesion or referral to a specialist, the clinician can use a cytologic adjunct to provide additional lesion assessment. A positive or atypical cytologic test result reinforces the need for a biopsy or referral.A negative cytologic test result indicates the need for periodic follow-up of the patient. If the clinician detects persistence or progression of the lesion, immediately performing a biopsy of the lesion or referral to a specialist is indicated.4. The panel does not recommend autofluorescence, tissue reflectance or vital staining adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders among adult patients with clinically evident, seemingly innocuous or suspicious lesions.5. The panel suggests that for patients with no clinically evident lesions or symptoms, no further action is necessary at that time.6. The panel does not recommend commercially available salivary adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders among adult patients with or without clinically evident, seemingly innocuous or suspicious lesions and their use should be considered only in the context of research.Research recommendations There is a need for better estimation of the prevalence of potentially malignant disorders (PMDs) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in populations with different baseline risks. More information on patients' values and preferences is required as well as studies on the diagnostic test accuracy of cytologic and salivary adjuncts.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellMouth NeoplasmsAdultAmerican Dental AssociationHumansReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID30903116
OpenAlexW2923448028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.