ArticleBMC oral health2023
The value of a specialized second-opinion pathological diagnosis for oral and maxillofacial lesions.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How prior spectacle prescriptions shape diagnostic behavior: evidence from a randomized field experiment on vision care in Western China.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Diaspora of oral maxillofacial pathology and dermatopathology-A review.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn error in the diagnosis of an oral or maxillofacial lesion could potentially be detrimental to a patient's prognosis and management. Major discrepancies between the initial and subsequent diagnoses of head and neck pathologies range from 7 to 53%. This study determined the rate of discrepancies found in the diagnoses of oral and maxillofacial lesions after a second opinion in Saudi Arabia.
methodsA retrospective single-center study was conducted by oral and maxillofacial pathology consultants to review all cases referred for a second opinion to the oral and maxillofacial pathology laboratory between January 2015 and December 2020. If the second-opinion diagnosis matched the original diagnosis, this was described as "agreement." If the second-opinion diagnosis did not match the original diagnosis but would not change the management or prognosis of a patient, this was classified as a "minor disagreement." If the second-opinion diagnosis resulted in the changing of a patient's management or prognosis, this was categorized as a "major disagreement." Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare data between original and second-opinion diagnoses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsOf 138 cases, 59 (43%) had an initial diagnosis and a second-opinion diagnosis that were in major disagreement. The most common tumor for which there was a major disagreement was squamous cell carcinoma. No single factor influenced the occurrence of major disagreements.
conclusionsOur evaluation reiterates the importance of obtaining a second opinion from a specialist in oral and maxillofacial pathology to improve the diagnostic accuracy for lesions. A formal system for this step, in addition to the obtaining of adequate clinical and radiographic information about a patient, is mandatory for the review of difficult cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.