Prevalence of oral potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

At a workshop coordinated by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer and Precancer in the UK issues related to terminology, definitions and classification of oral precancer were discussed by an expert group. The consensus views of the Working Group are presented here. The term, 'potentially malignant disorders', was recommended to refer to precancer as it conveys that not all disorders described under this term may transform into cancer. Critically evaluating all definitions proposed so far for oral leukoplakia, the Working Group agreed that the term leukoplakia should be used to recognize 'white plaques of questionable risk having excluded (other) known diseases or disorders that carry no increased risk for cancer'. An outline was proposed for diagnosing oral leukoplakia that will prevent other oral white disorders being misclassified as leukoplakia. The Working Group discussed the caveats involved in the current use of terminology and classification of oral potentially malignant disorders, deficiencies of these complex systems, and how they have evolved over the past several decades. The terminology presented in this report reflects our best understanding of multi-step carcinogenesis in the oral mucosa, and aspires to engender consistency in use.

Publication bias is a major problem in evidence based medicine. As well as positive outcome studies being preferentially published or followed by full text publication authors are also more likely to publish positive results in English-language journals. This unequal distribution of trials leads to a selection bias in evidence l level studies, like systematic reviews, meta-analysis or health technology assessments followed by a systematic failure of interpretation and in clinical decisions. Publication bias in a systematic review occurs mostly during the selection process and a transparent selection process is necessary to avoid such bias. For systematic reviews/meta-analysis the PRISMA-statement (formerly known as QUOROM) is recommended, as it gives the reader for a better understanding of the selection process. In the future the use of trial registration for minimizing publication bias, mechanisms to allow easier access to the scientific literature and improvement in the peer review process are recommended to overcome publication bias. The use of checklists like PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review and provides substantial transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review. Copyright © 2010 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

To estimate the overall survival (OS) impact from increasing time to treatment initiation (TTI) for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).