ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2024
Effectiveness of adjunctive screening tools for potentially malignant oral disorders and oral cancer: A systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- MMP-9 as a diagnostic salivary biomarker for early detection of oral cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Oral Cancer Numerical Index (OCNI): Development and Validation of a Cytology-Based Risk Assessment for Oral Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of VELscope in oral potentially malignant disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven clinical decision support systems for early detection and precision therapy in oral cancer: a mini review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Oral Mucosa Capillaroscopy: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: To enhance the abilities of healthcare professionals to make informed treatment decisions and establish accurate diagnoses, it is essential to assess the diagnostic reliability of different adjunctive aids. This systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of various adjunctive methods for diagnosing suspected oral cancer (OC) or potentially malignant oral disorders (OPMD) in adults against histopathological investigative results. Materials and methods: The review protocol registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023463525) was developed in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Diagnostic Test Accuracy checklist. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted to identify relevant research articles published between January 2014 and April 2023 using the PubMed and EBSCO databases. The research question was meticulously structured following the participants' index test, reference standard, target condition, and study setting framework. To evaluate methodological quality and assess the risk of bias (RoB), the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used. Results: An initial search yielded 483 publications, which were reduced to 278 after removal of duplicates. Finally, 85 publications underwent full-text review by two investigators, which lead to 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 7% had a low RoB, 72% had an unclear RoB, and 21% had a high RoB. Applicability concerns were expressed in 59% of the studies with low concern, 31% with unclear quality evidence of concern, and 10% with high concern. Conclusion: The review findings support the use of these diagnostic methods as valuable adjuncts to biopsy for the early detection of various OPMD and OC. They also highlight the importance of regular screening and awareness in reducing the global burden of OC, while acknowledging that they cannot replace the gold standards of surgical biopsy and histopathological evaluation.
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.