Skip to main content
. 2024 Jan 11;60:53–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2023.12.004

Table 2.

Summary of findings of included systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Author Number of studies Number of participants or lesions Adjunctive tools with sufficient evidence Adjunctive tools with insufficient evidence Overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value or negative predictive value Overall recommendation and conclusion Publication bias Methodological limitations
Patton (2003)[23] 13 Participants 4872 Toluidine blue Oral Brush cytology- OralCDx Toluidine blue (sensitivity: 72 - 100%, specificity: 45-93%) Fair evidence to support use of toluidine blue to aid in the diagnosis of oral cancer Not reported No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
English language restriction
Titles and abstracts not duplicated by multiple people
Publication of bias analysis not specifically evident
Patton et al. (2008)[24] 23 subjects: 3687
lesions: 3323
Toluidine blue Insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of visually based examination adjuncts.
Chemiluminescence: ViziLite
Toluidine blue (median sensitivity: 85%, median specificity: 67%, median PPV: 85%, median NPV: 83%)
ViziLite (median sensitivity: 100%, median specificity: 0%, median PPV: 20%, median NPV: 0%)
Toluidine blue is an effect diagnostic adjunct for OPMD Not reported No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
English language restriction
Titles and abstracts not duplicated by multiple people
Publication of bias analysis not specifically evident
Fuller et al. (2015)[25] 48 Subjects: 2184
lesions: 1887
Oral cytology
Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy Laser-induced autofluorescence
Toluidine Blue Cytology (sensitivity: 89.8%, specificity: 89.8%, accuracy: 85.7%)
diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (sensitivity: 98.6%, specificity: 83.2%, accuracy: 96.5%)
Laser-induced autofluorescence (sensitivity: 97.7%, specificity: 84.4%, accuracy: 95.9%)
Toluidine blue (sensitivity: 82.1%, specificity: 52.8%, accuracy: 66.7%)
Significant improvement in diagnostic quality of oral cytology Not reported English language restriction
Publication of bias analysis not specifically evident
Rashid et al. (2015)[26] 25 subjects: 1133
lesions: 1182
Chemiluminescence and autofluorescence is better suited in specialist clinics Limited evidence for chemiluminescence and autofluorescence in primary care VELscope (sensitivity: 30-100%)
ViziLite (sensitivity: 77.3-100%)
ViziLite with toluidine blue (sensitivity: 0-59%)
Limited evidence for chemiluminescence and autofluorescence in primary care Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
English language restriction
Awan et al. (2016)[27] 11 subjects: 3838 None reported Autofluorescence: VELscope VELscope (sensitivity: 30-100%, specificity: 15-92.3%, PPV: 6.4-58.1%, NPV: 57.1-100%) Insufficient evidence to show direct tissue fluorescence visualization has a capability to be used as an oral cancer screening tool Not reported English language restriction
No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Titles and abstracts not duplicated by multiple people
Nagi et al. (2016)[28] 22 subjects: 543 None reported Chemiluminescence: ViziLite
Autofluorescence: VELscope
ViziLite (sensitivity: 77.1-100%, specificity: 0-27.8%)
VELscope (sensitivity: 22-100%, specificity: 16-100%)
Both chemiluminescence and autofluorescence may aid an experienced clinician. In literature, limited discrimination in high risk lesions. Not reported English language restriction
No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Titles and abstracts not duplicated by multiple people
Giovannacci et al. (2016)[29] 35 patients: 3137 None reported Autofluorescence
Chemiluminescence
Toluidine blue
Chemiluminescence associated with toluidine blue
Autofluorescence: sensitivity (mean: 72.4% range: 20-100%) specificity: (mean: 63.75%, range 15-100%), PPV: mean 55.74%, NPV: mean: 79.76%
Chemiluminescence: sensitivity (mean: 86.75% range 69.6-100%). Specificity: (mean: 38.37- range: 14.2%−81.5%) PPV: mean 74.5%, NPV: mean: 63%
Toluidine blue: sensitivity (mean: 72.5%, range: 56.1-95%) specificity: mean: 61.4% range: 25-74%)PPV: mean 58.16%, NPV: mean: 95.3%
chemiluminescence associated with toluidine blue: sensitivity (mean: 53.93% range 0-81.8%). Specificity: (mean: 66.44- range: 37.5%−97.5%) mean 87.2%, NPV: mean: 76.1%
Great inhomogeneity of the reported values Not reported English language restriction
No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Alsarraf et al. (2018)[30] 36 lesions: 4302 None reported Brush cytology Brush cytology (sensitivity: 60-100%, specificity: 32-100%) Meaningful evidence-based recommendations cannot be given from this study. Not reported English language restriction
Lingen et al. (2017)[31] 37 lesions: 5390 Cytology Autofluorescence
vital staining
Tissue reflectance
Cytologic testing and vital staining together
Cytology (sensitivity: 92%, specificity: 94%)
Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 90%, specificity: 72%)
vital staining (sensitivity: 87%, specificity: 71%)
Tissue reflectance (sensitivity: 75, specificity: 31%)
Cytologic testing and vital staining together (sensitivity: 95%, specificity: 68%)
Cytologic testing used in suspicious lesions appears to have the highest accuracy among adjuncts QUADAS-2 Studies identified only covered secondary and tertiary settings
Bustiuc et al. (2018)[32] 15 Lesions: 2364 None reported Autofluorescence: VELscope
Chemiluminescent devices
Velscope (sensitivity: 22-100%, specificity: 8.4-96.3%)
Chemiluminescent devices (sensitivity: 67-100%, specificity: 10-100%)
Velscope, Microlux/DL, VIziLite devices can be used assupporting methods. Not reported English language restriction
No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Titles and abstracts not duplicated by multiple people
Cicciu et al. (2019)[33] 25 Lesions: 1693 None reported Autofluorescence: VELscope VELscope (sensitivity mean: 70.19%, sensitivity range: 8.4-100%, specificity mean: 66.95%, specificity range: 8.4-100%) VELscope does not have the capacity to discern between a benign lesion, a malignant one, or a simple acute inflammation. Risk of bias analysis completed English language restriction
Chaitanya et al. (2019)[34] 12 patients: 1643 None reported Autofluorescence: VELscope VELscope (sensitivity: 40%, specificity: 80%) Autofluorescence using devices may be used as adjunct to find the exact location of the biopsy in altered mucosal conditions. Not reported English language restriction
No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Titles and abstracts not duplicated by multiple people
Tiwari et al. (2020)[35] 27 sample size: 6415 None reported Autofluorescence - varied sensitivity and sensitivity- large range Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 17-99.2%, specificity: 38-97.9%) Optical fluorescence should be used as a clinical adjunct rather than a specific diagnostic adjunct QUADAS-2 English language restriction
Kim et al. (2020)[36] 28 sample size: 1166 None reported Autofluorescence
Toluidine blue
Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 79.1%, specificity: 50.9%, NPV: 59.8%)
Toluidine blue (sensitivity: 75.4%, specificity: 60.3%, NPV: 68.5%)
autofluorescence and toluidine blue staining can not reliably be used alone for screening or a diagnostic workup. QUADAS-2 English language restriction
Buenahora et al. (2021)[37] 40 autofluorescence sample size: 5562
chemiluminescence sample size: 1353
Autofluorescence Chemiluminescent autofluorescence (sensitivity: 86%, specificity: 72%)
chemiluminescent (sensitivity: 67%, specificity: 48%)
Autofluorescence devices displayed superior accuracy levels in the identification of premalignant lesions and early neoplastic changes QUADAS-2 Only 2 database searches were used
Mazur et al. (2021)[38] 43 studies- qualitative synthesis,
34 papers- meta-analysis
Vital staining: 536 None reported Autofluorescence
High-Resolution Microendoscopy (HRME)
Optical Spectroscopy
Narrow Banding Imaging
Vital Stain Colorants
Autofluorescence: I2: 84.7% Q= 71.67
High-Resolution Microendoscopy (HRME): I2: 77.6% Q= 18.27
Optical Spectroscopy: I2: 80% Q= 30.18
Narrow Banding Imaging: I2: 19.7% Q= 1.24
Vital Stain Colorants: I2: 87.6% Q= 36.63
No technique can replace biopsy as the gold standard Jadad Scale
Newcastle-Ottawa scale
Cochrane guidelines
Language restriction to English, French, German, Spanish, Polish,
Albanian, and Romanian.
No excluded list of studies published
Moffa et al. (2021)[39] 26 studies 2631 oral lesions None reported Autofluorescence
Chemiluminescence
Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 81.3%, specificity: 52.1%)
chemiluminescence (sensitivity: 84.9%, specificity: 51.8%)
Poor specificity, and reduction of the false positive rate of both autofluorescence and chemiluminescence compared with COE. QUADAS-2 English language restriction
Studies with a sample size under 10 patients
Lima et al. (2021)[40] 45 studies None reported Autofluorescence: VELscope
5-Aminolevulinic acid
VELscope (sensitivity: 33-100%, specificity: 12-88.6%)
5-Aminolevulinic acid (sensitivity: 90-100%, specificity: 51-96%)
Autofluorescence and fluorescent probes can provide an accurate diagnosis of oral cancer, but can not replace histopathology The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies No excluded list of studies published
Saraniti et al. (2021)[41] 9 studies number of lesions: 1507 None reported Narrow band imaging Narrow band imaging- large range of sensitivities, specificity, PPV and NPV NBI has a higher specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy compared to white light examination not reported English language restriction
Publication of bias analysis not specifically evident
Kim et al. (2021)[42] 10 studies patients: 1374 Narrow Band Imaging- class III Narrow Band Imaging - Class I or class II criteria: Narrow band imaging- class III pooled sensitivity: 88.5%, pooled specificity: 90.1%, pooled NPV: 96.7%)
Narrow Band Imaging - Class I or class II:
sensitivity: 79.1% (class I), 95.6% (class II)
specificity: 29.7% (class I), 19.9% (class II)
NBI considered more accurate than white-light imaging when using the class III criteria QUADAS-2 No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Selection criteria was not detailed
Walsh et al. (2021) Updated paper from Macey et al. 2015[43] 63 studies lesions: 7942 None reported Vital staining
Cytology
Light-based detection
vital staining (overall sensitivity: 86%, specificity: 68%)
cytology (overall sensitivity: 90%, specificity: 94%)
light-based detection (overall sensitivity: 87%, specificity: 50%)
adjunctive tests cannot be recommended as replacement of gold standard scalpel biopsy and histological assessment QUADAS-2 no excluded list of studies published
Dos Santos et al. (2022)[44] 25 studies patients: 2249 None reported Autofluorescence: VELscope VELscope (sensitivity: 74%, specificity: 57%) Promising results regarding auto-fluorescence based methods Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. English language restriction
no excluded list of studies published
Kim DH et al. (2022)[45] 24 studies patients: 1914 Narrow band imaging Autofluorescence
Chemiluminescence
Cytology
Toluidine blue
Narrow band imaging (sensitivity: 77.9%, specificity: 83.5%, NPV: 83.5%, PPV: 72.5%, accuracy: 90.8%)
cytology (sensitivity: 72.1%, specificity: 86.2%, NPV: 84.9%, PPV: 75.1%, accuracy: 81.9%)
Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 85.6%, specificity: 48.8%, NPV: 86.6%, PPV: 49.3%, accuracy: 66.4%)
chemiluminescence (sensitivity: 87.5%, specificity: 56.8%, NPV: 83.3%, PPV: 66.4%, accuracy: 74.5%)
toluidine blue (sensitivity: 71.4%, specificity: 81.1%, NPV: 70.8%, PPV: 81.1%, accuracy: 75.9%)
narrow band imaging showed higher sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value QUADAS-2 no excluded list of studies published
Shaw et al. (2022)[46] 24 studies patients: 1783 Chemiluminescence of OPMDs including:
Leukoplakia
Oral lichen planus
Oral sub mucous fibrosis
None reported Chemiluminescence- accuracy of
Leukoplakia (sensitivity: 75% specificity: 98%)
OLP (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 60%)
Oral sub mucous fibrosis (sensitivity: 89%, specificity: 76%)
Chemiluminescence overall had good sensitivity and specificity values for the diagnosis of OPMDs. QUADAS-2 no excluded list of studies published
Kim DH et al. (2022)[47] 16 studies patients: 998 None reported Chemiluminescence
Toluidine blue
Chemiluminescence (sensitivity: 83.1%, specificity: 41.5%, NPV: 67.4%)
Toluidine blue (sensitivity: 83.2%, specificity: 42.9%, NPV: 74.7%)
chemiluminescence is comparable or worse than toluidine blue and clinical examination QUADAS-2 Limited information on included studies
no excluded list of studies published
No reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (eg PRISMA)
Mendonca et al. (2022)[48] 44 studies lesions: 3317 Detection of dysplastic OPMD:
Autofluorescence
Chemiluminescence
Narrow Band Imaging
Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy
5-aminolevulinic acid induced protoporphyrin IX fluorescence
Detection of OSCC:
Autofluorescence
Narrow Band Imaging
Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy
Detection of dysplastic OPMD:
Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 50%)
Chemiluminescence (sensitivity: 74%, specificity: 47%)
Narrow Band Imaging (sensitivity: 31%, specificity: 90%)
Fluorescence Spectroscopy (sensitivity: 72%, specificity: 96%)
Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy (sensitivity: 79%, specificity: 86%)
5aminolevulinic acid induced protoporphyrin IX fluorescence (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 78%)
Detection of OSCC:
Autofluorescence (sensitivity: 0.96, specificity: 0.58)
Narrow Band Imaging (sensitivity: 0.97, specificity: 0.89)
Fluorescence Spectroscopy (sensitivity: 0.93, specificity: 0.97)
Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy (sensitivity: 0.93, specificity: 0.90)
Analysed non-invasive imaging techniques suggest higher accuracy levels in the diagnosis of OSCC when compared to dysplastic OPMDs QUADAS-2 English language restriction
no excluded list of studies published
Zhang et al. (2022)[49] 11 studies patients: 1179 Narrow band imaging IPCL II lesions Narrow band imaging – IPCL II lesions:
Sensitivity: 87%, specificity: 83%
Narrow band imaging is a promising adjunctive tool for identifying malignant transformations of OPMDs. QUADAS-2 No excluded list of studies published