ReviewOTO open
Deprivation Indices in Head and Neck Cancer: A Scoping Review.
Review in OTO open. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review aims to characterize the methodology and findings of head and neck cancer (HNC) literature utilizing deprivation indices. Data Sources: Studies published in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Scopus (Elsevier), and Web of Science (Clarivate). Review Methods: A PRISMA-ScR-based protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (ID: vhm2n). Two independent reviewers and an unbiased moderator conducted study selection and characterization. Results were narratively synthesized to identify thematic trends in index utilization, outcome disparities, and methodological variability. Results: Of the 5126 unique abstracts identified, 45 articles were included. Studies were mostly retrospective national database studies (n = 24, 53.3%) published after 2020 (n = 41, 91.1%). The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) was the most frequently reported deprivation index (n = 16, 35.6%) followed by Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) (n = 14, 31.1%), typically analyzed as continuous variables (n = 20, 44.4%). The most common primary outcomes were survival (n = 17, 37.8%), surveillance period (n = 12, 26.7%), and tumor characteristics at presentation (n = 7, 15.6%). A significant association between greater deprivation and worse primary outcomes was reported in 39 studies (90.3%), including 13 of 14 SVI studies (92.9%) and 11 of 16 ADI studies (68.8%). Conclusions: While deprivation indices are increasingly used in HNC research, their application remains inconsistent across study design, index selection, and reporting. Deprivation indices have utility in HNC research and should be further studied to better standardize their use for clinical application and interpretation.
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.