Question · asked by 1 review
COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone: Sensitivity (COE alone arm)
- Population
- Oral cavity cancer or potentially malignant disorder symptom-free individuals with tobacco habits
- Intervention
- COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)
- Comparison
- Conventional oral examination (COE) alone
- Outcome
- Sensitivity (COE alone arm)
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 50%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone Sensitivity (COE alone arm) · OSCC or OPMD symptom-free individuals with tobacco habits Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in… (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.50 [0.12, 0.88] | 1 study · 3895 participants | Moderate |
COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone Sensitivity (COE alone arm) · Oral cavity cancer or potentially malignant disorder symptom-free individuals with tobacco habits Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in… (2013) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010173.PUB2, superseded | Sensitivity 0.50 [0.12, 0.88] | 1 study · 3895 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2020-10 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.