Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36579978›Full record

SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2022

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening of Lip and Oral Cavity Cancers or Potentially Malignant Disorders (PMD) by Frontline Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dahy Sulaiman, Ayush Lohiya, S A Rizwan, Ankita Singh, Pooja Dwivedi, Pankaj Bahuguna, Jyoti Dixit, Ankur Verma, Vijendra Kumar

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dahy SulaimanKalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3546-0846
Ayush LohiyaKalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1429-7821
S A RizwanICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3140-2614
Ankita SinghKalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, India.
Pooja DwivediKalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, India.
Pankaj BahugunaPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Jyoti DixitPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Ankur VermaKalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, India.
Vijendra KumarKalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, India.
Cancer Institute (WIA) · INPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INNational Institute of Epidemiology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral cancer screening strategies help reduce associated mortality and could be performed by a trained frontline health worker (FHW). The present review aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screening modalities for oral cancer performed by FHW in apparently healthy individuals.

methodsElectronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, were searched. The review included studies conducted where apparently healthy adult individuals were screened by the FHW for cancer or PMD of the lip and oral cavity by any of the four commonly used techniques - Conventional Oral Examination (COE), toluidine blue staining (TBS), Oral Cytology (OC), and Chemiluminescent Illumination (CLI).

findingsA total of 2,413 potentially relevant articles were retrieved from the search, among which five studies for COE were included in the review. Four out of those five studies were done before the year 2000. None of the studies fitted the inclusion criteria for TBS, OC, and CLI. Pooled sensitivity of oral screening by COE performed by an FHW (n=5) was 88.8% (95% CI: 71.6-96.1), whereas pooled specificity was 91.9% (95% CI: 78.3-97.3). On subgroup analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies where the prevalence of disease was <50% (n=4) was 84.5% (95% CI: 62.6 - 94.7) and 94.1% (95% CI: 82.2 - 98.2), respectively.

interpretationCOE by trained FHW had high pooled sensitivity and specificity for screening of oral cancer and PMDs. The screening techniques TBS, OC, and CLI, were not studied for mass screening by trained FHW. COE by trained FHW could be utilized for oral screening in limited-resource settings. However, the FHW should be sufficiently trained to get the desired benefits of early detection.

fundingDepartment of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.

Indexed as

Lip NeoplasmsMouth NeoplasmsAdultEarly Detection of CancerHumansLipSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnostic accuracyMouth neoplasmOral cancer screeningpremalignant condition

Identifiers

PMID36579978
PMCPMC9971487
OpenAlexW4313328735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.