↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
73 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010276.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Macey, Tanya Walsh, Paul Brocklehurst, Alexander R Kerr, Joseph LY Liu, Mark W Lingen, Graham R Ogden, Saman Warnakulasuriya, Crispian Scully

Abstract

Oral squamous cell carcinoma is the most common form of malignancy of the lip and oral cavity, often being proceeded by potentially malignant disorders (PMD). Early detection can reduce the malignant transformation of PMD and can improve the survival rate for oral cancer. The current standard of scalpel biopsy with histology is painful for patients and involves a delay whilst histology is completed; other tests are available that are unobtrusive and provide immediate results. Primary objective: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of index tests for the detection of oral cancer and PMD of the lip and oral cavity, in people presenting with clinically evident lesions. To estimate the relative accuracy of the different index tests. The electronic databases were searched on 30 April 2013. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to April 2013) and four other electronic databases (the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, EMBASE (OVID) and MEDION (Ovid)). There were no restrictions on language in the searches of the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. We selected studies that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of the following index tests when used as an adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting PMD or oral squamous cell carcinoma of the lip or oral cavity: vital staining, oral cytology, light-based detection and oral spectroscopy, blood or saliva analysis (which test for the presence of biomarkers in blood or saliva). Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors, independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis was used to combine the results of studies for each index test using the bivariate approach to estimate the expected values of sensitivity and specificity. We included 41 studies, recruiting 4002 participants, in this review. These studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination with: vital staining (14 studies), oral cytology (13 studies), light-based detection or oral spectroscopy (13 studies). Six studies assessed two combined index tests. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis.The summary estimates for vital staining obtained from the meta-analysis were sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90) with specificity of 0.70 (0.59 to 0.79), with 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For cytology, sensitivity was 0.91 (0.81 to 0.96) and specificity was 0.91 (0.81 to 0.95) with 12 studies included in the meta-analysis. For light-based detection, sensitivity was 0.91 (0.77 to 0.97) and specificity was 0.58 (0.22 to 0.87) with 11 studies included in the meta-analysis. The relative test accuracy was assessed by adding covariates to the bivariate analysis, no difference in model fit was observed. The overall quality of the included studies was poor. None of the adjunctive tests can be recommended as a replacement for the currently used standard of a scalpel biopsy and histological assessment. Given the relatively high values of the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for cytology, this would appear to offer the most potential. Combined adjunctive tests involving cytology warrant further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 194 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 36 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 42 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2020.
All research outputs
#484,558
of 18,904,345 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,048
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,235
of 244,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,904,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.