ArticleOral diseases2025
The Current State of Clinical Diagnostic Algorithms for Mucosal Oral Lesions: A Scoping Review.
Article in Oral diseases, 2025. 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.
- Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy-Based Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evidence-based review and clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of common oral mucosal lesions.World journal of experimental medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing oral lesions remains challenging for many dentists. Despite the availability of diagnostic algorithms, there is a dearth of comprehensive evidence synthesis and a discussion on their clinical and pedagogical applicability.
methodsA scoping review was conducted to identify: (1) algorithms or flow diagrams that help clinicians to diagnose oral lesions in a clinical setting without additional software; (2) publications in English; (3) all age groups; (4) algorithms for oral lesions of soft tissue only. We excluded those that are: (1) black-box; (2) required additional tests; (3) older versions; (4) for non-mucosal lesions, and (5) intended for self-screening. A keyword and MeSH term search was performed across three peer-reviewed publication databases and gray literature.
resultsSeventeen algorithms from 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 1 online course were identified. Most studies did not mention how the algorithms were developed, and none had been validated in a clinical setting. The algorithms often focused on one or two types of lesions and were incomplete in differential diagnoses.
conclusionFew clinical diagnostic algorithms for oral lesions are available in the literature. Notably, there are no validated and comprehensive clinical diagnostic algorithms for oral mucosal lesions.
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.