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
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 6 · 85.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 14.3%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 |
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… · 9-year follow-up Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2010) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150.PUB3, superseded | There was no statistically significant difference in the mortality rate for oral cancer between the intervention group and control. Over the 9-year period, 77 of 205 (intervention) and 87 of 158 (control) died;… | 1 study · 191873 participants | GRADE not reported |
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… · 9-year follow-up, High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users) Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2010) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150.PUB3, superseded | For individuals that used tobacco, alcohol or both, a significant reduction of 43% in mortality rates for men (from 42.9 to 24.6 per 100,000 person years). For women, a 22% reduction (from 50.7 to 39.4 per 100,000… | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
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… · 9-year follow-up Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2006) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150.PUB2, superseded | There was no statistically significant difference in death rate from oral cancer between the intervention group and control. Over the 9-year period, 77 of 205 subjects with oral cancer in the intervention group and 87… | 1 study · 191873 participants | GRADE not reported |
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… · 9-year follow-up, High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users) Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2006) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150.PUB2, superseded | High-risk group (tobacco or alcohol users): deaths 70 (intervention) vs 85 (control); mortality rate 29.9/100,000 person-years vs 45.4/100,000. A significant 34% reduction in mortality was recorded in the high-risk… | 1 study · 84600 participants | GRADE not reported |
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… · 6-year follow-up Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer (2003) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004150, superseded | There was no statistical significant difference in death rate from oral cancer between the intervention group and control. Over the 6-year period, 65 of 149 subjects with oral cancer in the intervention group and 62 of… | 1 study · 130779 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 | 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.