What do systematic reviews say?

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  No harms were reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty).

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 0.88 [0.69, 1.12]
  1 study · 191873 participants
  Low
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.76 [0.60, 0.97]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  9 years (three cycles)
  The costs associated with the screening programme were reported after three cycles (nine years) (Subramanian 2009) (Additional Table 8). The benefit produced by a screen was 269.31 life-years saved per 100,000 for all…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer incidence compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]
  1 study · 191873 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.97 [0.79, 1.19]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 0.81 [0.70, 0.93]
  1 study · 523 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.82 [0.71, 0.95]
  1 study · 486 participants
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  Data on quality of life were not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  Across the four cycles (15 years), the reported sensitivity of the visual examination in detecting oral cancer was 67.4% (188/279). No information on the specificity or the positive predictive value of the programme…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  5-year survival
  A significantly higher five-year survival rate was reported in the screened group (55.5%) compared to the control (43.4%) (P value = 0.003).
  1 study · 523 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

Toluidine blue (visual staining) vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality; no eligible randomised controlled trial…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Brush biopsy (oral cytology) vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality; no eligible randomised controlled trial…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fluorescence imaging / light-based techniques vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality; no eligible randomised controlled trial…
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

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