ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Evaluation of Usage of Different Diagnostic Aids for Oral Cancer by Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons: An Original Research.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Concurrent Validity of the Oral Health Screening Tool (OHS) in the Mental Health Care Setting: A Pilot Study.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess how oral and maxillofacial surgeons used various diagnostic tools for oral cancer. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional methodology was used, and a standardized questionnaire was given to oral and maxillofacial surgeons randomly chosen sample. The questionnaire gathered information on demographics and the use of diagnostic tools. Data analysis methods included Chi-square testing and descriptive statistics. Results: The study included 200 oral and maxillofacial surgeons in total. The most often used diagnostic tool (95%) was visual inspection, followed by toluidine blue staining (48%) and brush biopsy (32%). Less frequently used were newer methods like optical coherence tomography (12.5%) and autofluorescence imaging (15%). No significant correlations between demographic factors and patterns of use of diagnostic tools were found by Chi-square tests. Conclusion: The results show that oral and maxillofacial surgeons frequently use brush biopsy, toluidine blue staining, and ocular evaluation. However, there is a need for more widespread adoption of cutting-edge technologies. By removing obstacles and offering training opportunities, one can increase the use of diagnostic tools, improving patient outcomes and the diagnosis of oral cancer.
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.