Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31263980›Full record

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 Surgery2019

Assessment of the cancerization risk for oral potentially malignant disorders by clinical risk model combined with autofluorescence and brush biopsy with DNA-image cytometry.

Zhida Sun, Lin Liu, Chen Wang, Ling Qian, Jingjing Yang, Zhibai Zhao, Yuan Fan, Zhihang Peng

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022
    Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhida SunJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Lin LiuJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Chen WangJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Ling QianJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Jingjing YangJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Zhibai ZhaoJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Yuan FanJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China. fanyuan@njmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4759-5625
Zhihang PengJiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China. zhihangpeng@njmu.edu.cn.
Nanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

the National Nature Science Foundation of China 81470748the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions PAPD 2018-87
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore the feasibility of assessing the cancerization risk of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) through a clinical risk model combined with autofluorescence and brush biopsy with DNA-image cytometry.

methodsWe collected the baseline clinical data of 269 patients; then, performed autofluorescence, brush biopsy with DNA-image cytometry and histopathological examination. Then, we obtained the significant factors by univariate logistic analysis, constructed the clinical risk model by multiple logistic regression and selected the optimal cutoff value according to the maximum Youden index. Finally, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the clinical risk score ≥ cutoff value, autofluorescence and brush biopsy with DNA-image cytometry, and plotted the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and decision curve analysis (DCA).

resultsThe clinical risk model is represented by the formula: 1 × gender + 1.6 × age group + 1 × lesion site + 1.4 × local stimulus + 1.5 × drink. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.83, and the optimal cutoff score was 3. The AUC indicated that the clinical risk score ≥ 3 (0.74) and autofluorescence (0.77) had a certain diagnostic values, while brush biopsy with DNA-image cytometry (0.92) displayed a good value. Besides, the DCA showed that all three tests had clinical significance.

conclusionsThe cancerization risk of patients can be assessed by the clinical risk model combined with sequence application of autofluorescence and brush biopsy with DNA-image cytometry, to decide whether histopathological examination or other intervention measures should be selected.

Indexed as

Mouth NeoplasmsBiopsyCarcinogenesisChinaDiagnosis, OralFemaleHumansImage CytometryMaleMiddle AgedMouth DiseasesOptical ImagingPrognosisRisk AssessmentAutofluorescenceBrush biopsy with DNA-image cytometryCancerization riskModelOral potentially malignant disorders

Identifiers

PMID31263980
OpenAlexW2955434026

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.