What do systematic reviews say?

Scheduled surveillance vs clinical monitoring alone

Scheduled surveillance showed no clear difference in risk of access loss compared with clinical monitoring alone (moderate certainty).

• Pre‐emptive correction for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.9 [0.71, 1.15]
  6 studies · 662 participants
  Moderate

Scheduled surveillance vs clinical monitoring alone

Scheduled surveillance showed no clear difference in mortality compared with clinical monitoring alone (low certainty).

• Pre‐emptive correction for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.38 [0.9, 2.11]
  5 studies · 586 participants
  Low

Electronic drug stock notification system with data management support vs paper‐based stock notification

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  484 participants
  Very low

Electronic drug stock notification system with data management support vs paper‐based stock notification

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  484 participants
  Very low

Electronic drug stock notification system with product transport support vs paper‐based stock notification

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  326 participants
  Very low

Electronic drug stock notification system with product transport support vs paper‐based stock notification

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  326 participants
  Very low

Duplex ultrasound plus pulse palpation and arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) vs pulse palpation plus arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) (long term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Duplex ultrasound for surveillance of lower limb revascularisation 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Duplex ultrasound plus pulse palpation and arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) vs pulse palpation plus arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) (short term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Duplex ultrasound for surveillance of lower limb revascularisation 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

• Training health workers in clinical breast examination for early detection of breast cancer in low‐ and middle‐income… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 1 participants
  Moderate

Antifungal prophylaxis vs no antifungal prophylaxis

Antifungal prophylaxis showed no clear difference in microbiological resistance of Candida to fluconazole: surveillance… compared with no antifungal prophylaxis (low certainty).

• Primary antifungal prophylaxis for cryptococcal disease in HIV‐positive people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.25 [1, 1.55]
  3 studies · 539 participants
  Low

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

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

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

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis 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 blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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