ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Predictive value of a non-invasive autofluorescence-based device (GOCCLES®) in the early diagnosis of oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer: a cross-sectional study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. 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
purposeOral cancer is the sixteenth most common malignancy globally and is characterized by a 5-year survival rate of less than 40%. In recent years, innovative methods have been developed to facilitate its early diagnosis, including the GOCCLES® device. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of GOCCLES® in detecting dysplasia in oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and diagnosing oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Additionally, this study sought to compare the device's efficacy with toluidine blue (TB) staining and assess the value of combining both methods.
methodsPatients clinically diagnosed with OPMDs or OSCC were included. Anamnesis, oral examination, inspection with GOCCLES®, and TB staining were performed. Finally, lesions were biopsied and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of each technique were determined.
resultsThirty-two patients were included in this study. The GOCCLES® device had a sensitivity of 33.3%, specificity of 40%, PPV of 25%, NPV of 50%, and accuracy of 37.5%. For TB staining, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 58.3%, 85%, 70%, 77.27%, and 75%, respectively. The respective values for the combined method were 44.4%, 77.78%, 66.67%, 58.33%, and 61.11%.
conclusionsGOCCLES® and TB staining could help in the early diagnosis of OSCC and OPMDs, but a biopsy of the lesion remains essential for obtaining a definitive diagnosis.
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.