What do systematic reviews say?

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

Early open repair vs ultrasound surveillance

Early open repair leads to lower mortality ( compared with ultrasound surveillance (high certainty).

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.99
  2 studies · 2226 participants
  High

Early open repair vs ultrasound surveillance

Early open repair showed no clear difference in costs (per participant) ( compared with ultrasound surveillance (moderate certainty).

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 1090 participants
  Moderate

Early open repair vs ultrasound surveillance

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2226 participants
  GRADE not reported

Early open repair vs ultrasound surveillance

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2226 participants
  GRADE not reported

Early endovascular repair vs ultrasound surveillance

Early endovascular repair showed no clear difference in mortality ( compared with ultrasound surveillance (low certainty).

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.92 [0.73, 5.06]
  2 studies · 846 participants
  Low

Early endovascular repair vs ultrasound surveillance

Early endovascular repair showed no clear difference in costs ( compared with ultrasound surveillance (low certainty).

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  MD 27
  1 study · 614 participants
  Low
• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  MD 2557
  1 study · 614 participants
  Low

Early endovascular repair vs ultrasound surveillance

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 605 participants
  GRADE not reported

Early endovascular repair vs ultrasound surveillance

• Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 1088 participants
  GRADE not reported

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) showed no clear difference in documenting of matched pregnancy outcome data compared with low‐intensity brief text messaging (low certainty).

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.94 [0.63, 1.38]
  1 study · 10934 participants
  Low

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found