Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704619›Full record

ArticleCancer cytopathology2022

Oral brush biopsy using liquid-based cytology is a reliable tool for oral cancer screening: A cost-utility analysis: Oral brush biopsy for oral cancer screening.

Majdy Idrees, Camile S Farah, Philip Sloan, Omar Kujan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer cytopathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Saliva-based cell-free DNA and cell-free mitochondrial DNA in head and neck cancers have promising screening and early detection role.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Majdy IdreesUniversity of Western Australia Dental School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7206-5389
Camile S FarahAustralian Centre for Oral Oncology Research and Education, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1642-6204
Philip SloanSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0142-0213
Omar KujanUniversity of Western Australia Dental School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5951-8280
The University of Western Australia · AUNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt John of God Subiaco Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic utility and associated cost of oral liquid-based brush cytology (OLBC) in the diagnosis of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs).

methodsA total of 284 patients with oral mucosal lesions were included. OLBC samples were collected from all patients immediately before undergoing surgical biopsies. A liquid-based cytology slide was prepared from each OLBC sample for cytological evaluation using the modified 2014 Bethesda cytology system. The results and the cost were compared with the histopathological outcomes.

resultsThe level of agreement between the two approaches was very good (weighted kappa = 0.824). The accuracy of OLBC in differentiating between the different diagnostic groups was 91.69%, whereas the associated sensitivity and specificity were 79.23% and 94.81%, respectively. The estimated cost of each OLBC sample was at least 26% less than the cost of a single biopsy and more than 42% less in cases of multiple biopsied lesions.

conclusionsThe proposed modifications of the Bethesda system can be adopted as a standardized system for oral cytological assessment. Our findings support OLBC as a reliable adjunct to surgical biopsy in the diagnosis of OPMDs. This tool has potential for oral cancer-finding and surveillance programs.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMouth NeoplasmsBiopsyCytodiagnosisCytological TechniquesHumansSensitivity and Specificitybrush biopsycost analysisoral liquid-based brush cytologyoral potentially malignant disorders

Identifiers

PMID35704619
PMCPMC9544877
OpenAlexW4282945792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.