Question · asked by 1 review
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening: Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection)
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of… · 15-year follow-up Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.81 [0.70, 0.93] | 1 study · 523 participants | GRADE not reported |
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of… · 15-year follow-up, High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users) Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.82 [0.71, 0.95] | 1 study · 486 participants | GRADE not reported |
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of… · 9-year follow-up Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2010) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150.PUB3, superseded | Statistically significant stage shift: 42% of intervention cases in stage I or II vs 24% of control cases (P = 0.004); 66% of control cases in stage III or IV vs 41% of intervention cases. | 1 study · 363 participants | GRADE not reported |
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of… · 9-year follow-up Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2006) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150.PUB2, superseded | 42% of intervention cases were in stage I or II, as opposed to 24% of control cases (P = 0.004); 66% of control cases were in stage III or IV vs 41% of intervention cases. | 1 study · 363 participants | GRADE not reported |
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of… · 6-year follow-up Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2003) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150, superseded | In the intervention group, 37.6% of cases were in stage I or II, as opposed to 18.9% of cases in the control group (p < 0.001). 57.5% of control cases were in stage III or IV corresponding to 42.3% of intervention cases. | 1 study · 255 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes | 22 July 2013 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.