COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone
Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Sensitivity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
1 finding from 1 review
COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) 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)
Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Detection rate of oral pre-malignant and malignant lesions after referral (COE+vital rinsing vs COE alone) · Oral cavity cancer or potentially malignant disorder symptom-free individuals with tobacco habits
COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) showed no clear difference in detection rate of oral pre-malignant and malignant lesions after… compared with conventional oral examination (COE) alone (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Specificity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
1 finding from 1 review
COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone
Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) 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)
Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000)
Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Specificity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
1 finding from 1 review
Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review
Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
4 studies · 35059 participants
Very low
Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review
Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
10 studies · 25568 participants
Low
Sensitivity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
1 finding from 1 review
Sensitivity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
1 finding from 1 review
Sensitivity (COE alone arm) · Oral cavity cancer or potentially malignant disorder symptom-free individuals with tobacco habits
1 finding from 1 review
Sensitivity · Oral cavity cancer or potentially malignant disorder symptom-free individuals with tobacco habits
1 finding from 1 review
Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review
Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.15), 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.63), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65) across the 4 studies. Prevalence 0.6% to 63.6%.…
4 studies · 35059 participants
Very low
Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review
Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 studies with low prevalence (<=10%) sensitivity ranged from 0.50 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies…
10 studies · 25568 participants
Low
Survival · adults and children with cystic fibrosis and with the F508del CFTR mutation
1 finding from 1 review
QoL (CFQ‐R) Respiratory domain · adults and children with cystic fibrosis and with at least one G551D CFTR mutation
1 finding from 1 review
FEV1 % predicted: relative change from baseline · adults and children with cystic fibrosis and with at least one G551D CFTR mutation
1 finding from 1 review