What do systematic reviews say?

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: VX‐152‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ monotherapy: cavosonstat vs placebo

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 26 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings ‐ monotherapy: cavosonstat vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oral cytology (e.g. OralCDx brush biopsy, CytID) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral cytology (e.g. brush biopsy) was added to the list of eligible index tests in this update; no eligible studies evaluated it (evidence gap).
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) across the 3 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.96), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) across the 3 studies. Prevalence 12.2% to 30.9%. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Brush biopsy (oral cytology) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

• Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Sensitivity 0.90 [0.82, 0.94]
  20 studies
  Moderate

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Specificity 0.91 [0.90, 0.91]
  1 study · 4080 participants
  Moderate
• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Specificity 0.92 [0.91, 0.93]
  1 study · 3895 participants
  Moderate

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible studies; planned comparative analysis (COE with vital rinse vs COE with light-based detection) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Blood and saliva analysis (biomarker tests) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible studies assessed the diagnostic test accuracy of blood and saliva analysis; potentially eligible biomarker studies were excluded as case-control designs.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible studies; planned comparative analysis (COE with vital rinse vs COE with blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Light-based detection and/or oral spectroscopy (e.g. ViziLite, VELscope, Microlux DL, Identafi 3000) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

• Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Specificity 0.50 [0.32, 0.68]
  23 studies
  Very low

Vital staining (e.g. toluidine blue, tolonium chloride) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

• Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Specificity 0.68 [0.58, 0.77]
  20 studies
  Very low