ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Diagnostic efficacy of VELscope in oral potentially malignant disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of VELscope in detecting oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted across six English databases and two Chinese databases: Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese biomedical literature service system (SinoMed). Prospective and cross-sectional studies using VELscope to diagnose OPMD were included. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. The meta-analysis evaluated VELscope's sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Heterogeneity was assessed via Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test, bivariate boxplot, and meta-regression analysis to identify sources of variation. Results: A total of 2054 studies were retrieved, of which 24 were included in the meta-analysis. The sensitivity of VELscope was 84% (95% CI, 0.78-0.89; I Conclusion: The VELscope demonstrates high sensitivity but limited specificity in diagnosing OPMD. Although it is unreasonable to rely solely on VELscope for a definitive diagnosis, it can provide valuable adjunctive support for detecting OPMD in settings such as large-scale screenings, community oral examinations, and resource-limited environments. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42025364593).
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.