Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2010
Effectiveness of oral surgeons compared with OralCDx brush biopsy in diagnosing oral dysplastic lesions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bhoopathi Vinodh, Mascarenhas Ana Karina
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate oral surgeons' effectiveness in diagnosing oral dysplastic lesions and compare it to OralCDx brush biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the oral surgeon's ability to diagnose dysplasia among 152 consecutive cases (tissue samples) that had previously tested either "positive" (n = 3) or "atypical" (n = 149) for dysplasia by OralCDx brush biopsy was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value using the scalpel biopsy as the gold standard. PPV for oral surgeons and atypical brush biopsy was compared stratified by age, gender, and lesion site.
RESULTS: The PPV, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity for oral surgeons were 10.3%, 100%, 100%, and 23.5%, respectively. After controlling for age, gender, and lesion site, oral surgeons were 19% to 58% more likely to diagnose a dysplastic lesion compared to OralCDx brush biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral surgeons' effectiveness in diagnosing oral dysplastic lesions was slightly better than the OralCDx brush biopsy; hence, it is recommended that patients be referred to an oral surgeon for evaluation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the oral surgeon's ability to diagnose dysplasia among 152 consecutive cases (tissue samples) that had previously tested either "positive" (n = 3) or "atypical" (n = 149) for dysplasia by OralCDx brush biopsy was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value using the scalpel biopsy as the gold standard. PPV for oral surgeons and atypical brush biopsy was compared stratified by age, gender, and lesion site.
RESULTS: The PPV, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity for oral surgeons were 10.3%, 100%, 100%, and 23.5%, respectively. After controlling for age, gender, and lesion site, oral surgeons were 19% to 58% more likely to diagnose a dysplastic lesion compared to OralCDx brush biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral surgeons' effectiveness in diagnosing oral dysplastic lesions was slightly better than the OralCDx brush biopsy; hence, it is recommended that patients be referred to an oral surgeon for evaluation.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Age FactorsBiopsyCross-Sectional StudiesCytodiagnosisDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth DiseasesMouth FloorMouth NeoplasmsPalatal NeoplasmsPalate, HardPalate, SoftPrecancerous ConditionsPredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificitySex FactorsSurgery, OralTongue DiseasesTongue Neoplasms