SynthesisBMC oral health2024
Oral biopsy in mucous membrane pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris with gingival expression: the optimal site. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Desquamative Gingivitis: A Narrative Review of Practical Diagnostic Approach for General Dental Practitioners.Cureus · 2026Review
- [Value of direct immunofluorescence in the diagnosis of oral mucosal pemphigus vulgaris: A retrospective study based on multi-index combined analysis].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn order to diagnose mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) and pemphigus vulgaris (PV) with gingival expression, clinical data must be compared with immunohistochemical data obtained using direct immunofluorescence (DIF). It is therefore essential to carry out a good quality mucosal biopsy for this vital additional test. To date, no study has been able to effectively guide clinicians in their choice of oral site for biopsy to guarantee the efficient contribution of DIF to diagnosis. We propose a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to clarify this issue. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic databases and bibliographies of articles were searched in April 2023. The primary outcome was the rate of DIF + contribution to diagnosis according to the location of the oral site biopsied.
results16 studies were included. Gingival biopsies showed a rate of DIF + 100% [97%-100%] p = 0.998 I
conclusionThe nature of the oral mucosa biopsied does not influence the rate of DIF + to diagnosis. The choice of biopsy site should only take into account the characteristics of the clinical picture and the benefit/risk balance of the surgical protocol. The sample must be taken in healthy aeras as close as possible of active lesions: on the gingiva if the MMP and PV are strictly gingival, on the alveolar mucosa if the whole gingiva is altered and on any healthy mucosa if a large number of oral sites are affected. CLINICAL TRIALS: CRD42023392345.
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.