Question · asked by 1 review
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening: Oral cancer mortality (disease-specific)
- Population
- Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala, India
- Intervention
- Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers
- Comparison
- No screening
- Outcome
- Oral cancer mortality (disease-specific)
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 50%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) · 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 showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty). Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.88 [0.69, 1.12] | 1 study · 191873 participants | Low |
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening Oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) · 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 oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.76 [0.60, 0.97] | 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 | 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.