What do systematic reviews say?

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)

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 light-based detection.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

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 vs COE with light-based detection) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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)

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 study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000)

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 light-based detection vs COE with blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) 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 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

Visual examination (VE) 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 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

Mouth self-examination (MSE) 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 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

Visual examination (VE) 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 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

Brief intervention vs no intervention or minimal intervention

• Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  34 studies · 15197 participants
  Moderate

Brief intervention vs no intervention or minimal intervention

• Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  15 studies · 6946 participants
  Moderate

Brief intervention vs no intervention or minimal intervention

• Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  11 studies · 5469 participants
  Moderate

Brief intervention vs no intervention or minimal intervention

• Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  10 studies · 3128 participants
  Moderate

Brief intervention vs no intervention or minimal intervention

• Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 5 participants
  Very low

Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening

It is very uncertain whether outreach clinic changes tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) compared with house‐to‐house screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.48 [1.11, 1.97]
  1 study · 405819 participants
  Very low

Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 2673 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 109 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found