Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39228608›Full record

ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2024

Early identification of people at high risk of oral cancer-A review of existing risk prediction models.

Monica Mocherla, Pushpanjali Krishnappa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Monica MocherlaFaculty of Dental Sciences, M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Mathikere, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Pushpanjali KrishnappaDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, M. S. Ramaiah Dental College and Hospital, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Mathikere, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prediction plays a ubiquitous role in cancer care. At every stage of the illness, the patient, the physician, and the family must make numerous decisions. Utilizing epidemiological, clinical, biological, lifestyle, and genetic factors, a cancer-specific risk assessment model calculates the likelihood of developing cancer. In India, oral cancer ranks as the fourth most common cancer, affecting nearly 3,000,00 individuals annually. Because it is in the premalignant stage, oral cancer is easily detectable in the oral cavity. Prompt identification of this lesion can result in better outcomes and a higher standard of living. Advanced statistical techniques have been used to develop prediction algorithms or risk scores that identify individuals with a high risk of developing oral cancer. With the aid of these risk assessment models, specific individuals can be screened to aid in the early detection of the disease, which may result in better outcomes and lifestyle modifications. Finding the best model among the current risk models for oral cancer may be aided by a thorough examination of all these models. Finding and assessing the risk model that primary care physicians can use and easily apply in clinical practice will be made easier with a succinct and straightforward comparison of the models. This review compares the current models to determine which has the best performance metrics, which could lead to a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of various risk prediction models of oral cancer.

Indexed as

Oral canceroral healthrisk factorsrisk predictiontobacco

Identifiers

PMID39228608
PMCPMC11368278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.