Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40059391›Full record

SynthesisJournal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology2025

The Need to Improve the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and the Excerpta Medica Tree (EMTREE) Thesauri to Perform Systematic Review on Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders.

Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio, Gennaro Musella, Mario Pérez-Sayáns, Lorenzo Lo Muzio, Rui Amaral Mendes, Rosa María López-Pintor

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Vito Carlo Alberto CaponioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5080-5921
Gennaro MusellaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3576-4670
Mario Pérez-SayánsOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Santiago de Compostela University, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-9868
Lorenzo Lo MuzioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4633-4893
Rui Amaral MendesDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7628-8598
Rosa María López-PintorORALMED Research Group, Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, School of Dentistry, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5727-0920

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III through project PI22/00905 co-funded by the European Union.This article is based upon work from COST Action CA21140 - INTercEption of oRal CancEr develoPmenT (INTERCEPTOR), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III through project PI22/00905 co-funded by the European Union.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite recent advancements in the understanding and classification of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), their terminology remains inconsistent and heterogeneous throughout the scientific literature, thus affecting evidence-based decision-making relevant for clinical management of these disorders. Updating this classification represents a necessity to improve the indexing and retrieval of OPMD publications, in particular for systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

methodsThrough a critical appraisal of the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Excerpta Medica Tree (EMTREE) thesauri, we assessed gaps in the indexing for OPMD literature and propose improvements for enhanced categorisation and retrieval.

resultsThe present study identifies inconsistencies and limitations in the classification of these disorders across the major medical databases, which may be summarized in the following findings: a) The MeSH database lacks a dedicated subject heading for "oral potentially malignant disorders"; b) EMTREE indexing is incomplete, with only 5 out of 11 recognised OPMD having corresponding terms; c) Incoherent controlled vocabulary mappings hinder systematic literature retrieval.

conclusionTo ensure accurate evidence synthesis, the authors recommend searching both PubMed and Embase for OPMD studies. Moreover, the use of Embase's PubMed query translator and Large Language Models, such as ChatGPT, may lead to retrieval biases due to indexing discrepancies, posing challenges for early-career researchers and students. We recommend introducing "oral potentially malignant disorders" as a standardised subject heading. Evidence-based medicine underpins clinical decision support systems, which rely on standardised clinical coding for reliable health information. Enhanced medical ontologies will facilitate structured clinical coding, ensuring interoperability and improving clinical decision support systems.

Indexed as

Medical Subject HeadingsMouth NeoplasmsAbstracting and IndexingHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicTerminology as TopicVocabulary, Controlledmedical informaticsmeta‐analysismouth diseasesoral lichen planusoral potentially malignant disorderprecancerous conditions

Identifiers

PMID40059391
PMCPMC11986563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.