SynthesisOral diseases2026
Patient and System Barriers to Early Diagnosis of Oral Cancer in the UK.
Synthesis in Oral diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOral cancer poses a significant public health challenge worldwide, especially in the UK, where delayed diagnosis negatively impacts patient outcomes and survival rates. This study aims to systematically review and synthesise evidence on patient and system barriers to early diagnosis of oral cancer within the UK context.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2024. The databases we searched included PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Web of Science including grey literature. Studies examining factors influencing patient and healthcare provider delays in oral cancer diagnosis were included. Key data such as the percentage of referrals by GPs and dentists, delay time, authors' names and year were extracted, and a meta-analytic approach was used to quantify the impact of barriers and facilitators on diagnostic timelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool, and the findings were visualised using Robvis. R studio software was used for the quantitative analysis.
resultsThe main patient-level barriers are psychosocial factors, cost, anxiety, and structure of primary dental care, and healthcare-level barriers are lack of time and inadequate remuneration. The pooled referral proportion for GPs was 0.49, with a 95% CI of 0.40 to 0.59, derived using a random-effects model. The pooled proportion for dentists was 0.38, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.31 to 0.46. A pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.27 (95% CI: 0.96-1.68) was observed when comparing referrals made by general practitioners (GPs) to those made by dentists.
conclusionThe pooled relative risk indicates a marginally increased probability of referrals by general practitioners compared to dentists; however, the overlapping confidence intervals necessitate a cooperative strategy to enhance referral routes. Addressing these obstacles via specific interventions and policy reform could significantly improve the UK's early detection rates and patient outcomes for oral cancer.
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.