ArticleJournal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP
Understanding the approach to interpretation and challenges in measurement of pathological depth of invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A cross-sectional survey of oral and maxillofacial pathologists in India.
Article in Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To understand the approach to interpretation along with challenges encountered in assessing pathological depth of invasion (pDOI) in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) as per 8 Method and Materials: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted (May 2021-October 2021) with a pre-validated 21-item questionnaire. Responses were stored in a Microsoft Excel worksheet and analysed by descriptive statistics using SPSS v 25.0. Results: About 69.7% of the 267 respondents correctly defined pDOI while 13.1% measured the same from tumour surface. Among those not reporting pDOI, one-third of respondents (36.6%) lacked requisite awareness about 8 Conclusion: Underreporting of pDOI was observed owing to inherent challenges in measurement, thus ostensibly substituted with tumour thickness. Elaboration on reference points of adjacent normal mucosa is awaited.
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.