Intervention not reported
True positives (participants with tuberculosis disease) · of people with HIV‐negative or unknown HIV status who are considered eligible for systematic screening for tuberculosis disease. Role of…
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
3 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
False negatives (participants incorrectly classified as not having tuberculosis disease) · of people with HIV‐negative or unknown HIV status who are considered eligible for systematic screening for tuberculosis disease. Role of…
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
2 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
True negatives (participants without tuberculosis disease) · of people with HIV‐negative or unknown HIV status who are considered eligible for systematic screening for tuberculosis disease. Role of…
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
871 participants
Low
Intervention not reported
Threshold · asymptomatic newborns at the time of pulse oximetry screening
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
95% (less than or less than or equal to) · asymptomatic newborns at the time of pulse oximetry screening
1 finding from 1 review
Economic Outcomes Resources used (staff time, equipment, consumables) · patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening
1 finding from 1 review
Staff/personnel costs; costs of treatment and care; cost of primary care; lost wages and lost productivity · patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening
1 finding from 1 review
Incremental cost‐effectiveness · patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening
1 finding from 1 review
Economic outcomes · patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1 · patients with informed decision making about taking screening tests
Personalised risk communication leads to higher informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1 compared with general risk information (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Accurately‐perceived risk proportion of participants who perceived risk accurately · patients with informed decision making about taking screening tests
Personalised risk communication showed no clear difference in accurately‐perceived risk proportion of participants who perceived… compared with general risk information (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Anxiety · patients with informed decision making about taking screening tests
1 finding from 1 review
Flare‐ups/relapse (dichotomous; adults) · people with inflammatory bowel disease
1 finding from 1 review
Quality of life (adults) · people with inflammatory bowel disease
1 finding from 1 review
Disease activity · people with inflammatory bowel disease
1 finding from 1 review
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)
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 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 light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)
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 vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)
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 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