ArticleGlobal surgery (London)2022
A Southeast Asian collaborative Delphi consensus on surveying risk factors for head and neck cancer screening and prevention.
Article in Global surgery (London), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine high value questions for early detection and prevention of head and neck cancer by querying content experts on patient risk factors relevant to local communities in Southeast Asia (i.e., Vietnam, Laos, China, and Singapore). The Delphi method was employed using three rounds of asynchronous surveying which included participants among five different collaborating medical centers. 60 total survey items were assessed for consensus defined by a priori measures on the relative level of value of these questions for use in head and neck cancer screening. 77% of items reached a consensus and no items were concluded to be of low value despite differences in conclusions regarding relative importance. Survey items focused on patient demographic information and physical examination were examined across variables such as expert department affiliation, academic designation, and years of experience and found to be without statistically significant differences. However, with consensus items related to social risk factors, it was determined that participants who had 15 or more years of experience or identified as otolaryngologists rated these items at a relatively lower value than their peers with less experience (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0017) or outside the field of otolaryngology (p = 0.0101). This study explicitly identifies patient variables to consider in head and neck cancer screening that have not previously been comprehensively or methodically assessed in current literature. Increasing awareness of these risk factors may benefit the design and implementation of future head and neck cancer early detection and prevention programs in Southeast Asia and beyond as well as positively impact head and neck cancer outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36561123PMC9770631What 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.