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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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 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
Periodontitis and GCF IL-6 · Women on long-term sick leave for depression
Depressed women had higher periodontal disease and GCF IL-6 after adjustment for age and smoking.
1 finding from 1 review
Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children younger than 71 months (under 6 years)
Breastfeeding for more than 12 months is associated with higher ECC prevalence (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 1.86 [1.48, 2.35]
13 studies
Low
Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children younger than 71 months (under 6 years)
Breastfeeding for more than 24 months is associated with higher ECC prevalence (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 2.99 [1.03, 8.67]
4 studies
Low
Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children younger than 71 months (under 6 years)
Breastfeeding for 12-24 months is associated with higher ECC prevalence (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
PR 3.32 [1.57, 5.07]
2 studies
Low
Early childhood caries (ECC) - incidence/risk · Children younger than 71 months (under 6 years)
Breastfeeding for 12-24 months may not increase ECC risk (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.21 [0.82, 1.78]
5 studies
Low
Intervention not reported
Early childhood caries (ECC) - incidence/risk
The intervention showed no clear difference in early childhood caries (ECC) - incidence/risk; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.37 [0.89, 2.12]
6 studies
GRADE not reported