↓ Skip to main content

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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
77 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 77 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 152 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%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 35 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#339,963
of 15,142,643 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#816
of 11,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,320
of 236,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,142,643 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 11,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 236,204 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 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.