ReviewCancers2024
Intraoperative Techniques That Define the Mucosal Margins of Oral Cancer In-Vivo: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Outcomes and Margin Assessment by Resection Tool in Tongue Cancer: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Assessment and interpretation of the status of surgical margins following resective surgery for head and neck squamous cancer: a narrative review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Leveraging Autofluorescence for Tumor Detection, Diagnosis, and Accurate Excision with Surgical Margin Assessment in Tumor Excision.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review investigates techniques for determining adequate mucosal margins during the resection of oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The primary treatment involves surgical removal with ≥5 mm margins, highlighting the importance of accurate differentiation between SCC and dysplasia during surgery.
methodsA comprehensive Embase and PubMed literature search was performed. Studies underwent quality assessment using QUADAS-2.
resultsAfter the full-text screening and exclusion of studies exhibiting high bias, eight studies were included, focusing on three margin visualization techniques: autofluorescence, iodine staining, and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Negative predictive value (NPV) was calculable across the studies, though reference standards varied. Results indicated NPVs for autofluorescence, iodine, and NBI ranging from 61% to 100%, 92% to 99%, and 86% to 100%, respectively. Autofluorescence did not significantly enhance margins compared to white light-guided surgery, while iodine staining demonstrated improvement for mild or moderate dysplasia. NBI lacked comparison with a white light-guided surgery cohort.
conclusionsWe recommend studying and comparing the diagnostic accuracy of iodine staining and NBI in larger cohorts of patients with oral SCC, focusing on discriminating between SCC and (severe) dysplasia. Furthermore, we advise reporting the diagnostic accuracy alongside the treatment effects to improve the assessment of these techniques.
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.