ArticleCureus2024
A Cross-Sectional Study on Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders: Diagnostic Challenges in Early Detection of Dysplasia and the Role of Velscope.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Evaluating the Role of VELscope in Oral Cancer and Pre-Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of VELscope in oral potentially malignant disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe oral cancer burden has become a global challenge in the present scenario. Early diagnosis of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) with dysplasia is crucial to increasing the overall survival rate of the patients. Efficient chairside techniques are much needed to enhance diagnostic efficacy at early stages. This study evaluates the effectiveness of Velscope in detecting dysplastic lesions and analyzes the impact of lifestyle factors on the prevalence and progression of oral potentially malignant disorders among 40 participants.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 40 participants diagnosed with OPMDs. Participants underwent a Velscope examination followed by incisional biopsy and histopathological evaluation. Data on lifestyle factors such as tobacco, alcohol, pan, and gutka use were collected through self-reported questionnaires. Data were analyzed to assess Velscope efficacy and correlations between lifestyle risk factors and lesion sites. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistics for Windows (version 26.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The significance level was fixed at 5% (α=0.05).
resultsThe data analysis of the study revealed that Velscope showed a sensitivity of 88.89% and a specificity of 46.15% (p = 0.013). The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Velscope was 77.42%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 66.67%. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of the Velscope in this study was 75.0%. Cohen's kappa of 0.381 indicated moderate agreement with biopsy results. Biopsy results showed no statistically significant correlation was found between dysplasia and lesion site, gender, smoking, alcohol, or pan use except for gutka users, who had a significantly higher rate of dysplasia (p = 0.027).
conclusionVelscope demonstrated high sensitivity but moderate specificity in detecting dysplasia, emphasizing its role as an adjunctive tool in early detection and delineation of oral lesions in conjunction with biopsies for accurate diagnosis. The higher rate of positive results for dysplasia among gutka users suggests that focused public health interventions are needed to address significant lifestyle risk factors, which in turn could reduce malignant transformations in OPMDs.
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.