Question · asked by 1 review
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening: Costs
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Costs · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of… · 9 years (three cycles) Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | The costs associated with the screening programme were reported after three cycles (nine years) (Subramanian 2009) (Additional Table 8). The benefit produced by a screen was 269.31 life-years saved per 100,000 for all… | 1 study | 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.