| Literature DB >> 36159096 |
Abhishek Kumbhalwar1, Sahana Hegde Shetiya2, Pradnya Kakodkar3, Vini Mehta4, Ankita Mathur5, Priyanka Porwal5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking and chewing tobacco are associated with numerous oral mucosal lesions and conditions, often leading to cancer progression. AIM: To investigate the prevalence of precancerous lesions and conditions among the Indian population.Entities:
Keywords: India; Pre-cancerous condition; Pre-cancerous lesion; Prevalence
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159096 PMCID: PMC9350727 DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v12.i4.293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Methodol ISSN: 2222-0682
Quality assessment
|
|
|
| Examination | 0-Not mentioned |
| 1-Others (Nurse, ENT doctor, Medical officer, Health worker | |
| 2-by dentist | |
| Study settings | Community setting (field); Hospital setting. |
| Clinical examination | 0-Not mentioned |
| 1-Visual screening (Tongue blade, Illumination) | |
| 2-Mouth mirror | |
| Sampling technique | Detailed description of the sampling strategy used, type of sampling (random or non-random) was determined. |
| 0-Not mentioned | |
| 1-Non-random | |
| 2-Random sampling | |
| Sample size adequacy | If description of sample size calculations was not done, the relative precision was calculated (assuming simple random sampling) from the study sample size and estimated proportion. |
| Relative precision was ≤ 20% of the point estimate | |
| 0-Relative precision > 20% of the point estimate | |
| ( |
Figure 1Flow chart showing the literature searched.
Meta-Analyses for the point estimate of various pre-cancerous lesions and conditions
|
|
|
|
|
| LKP | 92 | 4.3 (4.0-4.6) | 99.47 |
| LKP | 46 | 6.7 (6.0-7.3) | 99.74 |
| LKP | 138 | 4.9 (4.7-5.2) | 99.65 |
| ERP | 12 | 1.2 (0.7-1.7) | 94.97 |
| ERP | 6 | 2.5 (0.4-4.5) | 99.15 |
| ERP | 18 | 1.4 (1.0-1.7) | 97.91 |
| PL | 16 | 5.8 (4.4-7.2) | 99.49 |
| PL | 19 | 11.5 (8.0-15.0) | 99.81 |
| PL | 35 | 8.9 (7.4-10.3) | 99.77 |
| OSMF | 50 | 2.7 (2.5-3.0) | 99.18 |
| OSMF | 38 | 4.5 (4.2-4.9) | 99.58 |
| OSMF | 88 | 3.4 (3.2-3.6) | 99.43 |
| LP | 48 | 1.1 (0.9-1.2) | 97.59 |
| LP | 25 | 7.5 (5.3-9.6) | 99.92 |
| LP | 73 | 1.2 (1.1-1.3) | 98.14 |
Community-based studies.
Hospital based studies.
Pooled community and hospital based studies.
LKP: Leukoplakia; ERP: Erythroplakia; PL: Palatal lesion; OSMF: Oral Submucous fibrosis; LP: Lichen planus.
Subgroup analyses of precancerous lesions and conditions showing pooled point prevalence before and after COTPA (2003) was enacted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ≤ 2003 | 3.2 (2.5-4.0) (15) | No study; (0) | 5.2 (-3.2-13.6); (2) | 0.6 (0.4-0.7); (13) | 0.6 (0.2-1.0); (4) |
| > 2003 | 5.5 (5.2-5.9); (123) | 1.4 (1.0-1.7); (18) | 9.2 (7.5-10.8); (33) | 4.7 (4.4-5.0); (75) | 1.3 (1.1-1.4); (69) |
LKP: Leukoplakia; ERP: Erythroplakia; PL: Palatal lesion; OSMF: Oral Submucous fibrosis; LP: Lichen planus.
Subgroup analyses of precancerous lesions and conditions showing pooled point prevalence in different regions of India
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LKP | 4.4 (1.9-6.9) (7) | 8.4 (7.7-9.1) (44) | 5.2 (4.6-5.8) (24) | 3.4 (3.0-3.8) (63) |
| ERP | One study (1) | 3.5 (2.1-5.0) (4) | 2.9 (-1.5-7.2) (3) | 1.0 (0.5-1.5) (10) |
| PL | No study (0) | 16.9 (5.0-28.7) (5) | 6.2 (2.4-10.0) (10) | 8.1 (6.4-9.8) (20) |
| OSMF | 3.4 (2.1-4.6) (2) | 5.1 (4.7-5.4) (34) | 1.4 (1.0-1.8) (15) | 4.7 (4.2-5.3) (37) |
| LP | 5.0 (1.2-8.7) (3) | 1.2 (1.0-1.5) (15) | 1.7 (1.2-2.3) (15) | 1.0 (0.7-1.2) (40) |
LKP: Leukoplakia; ERP: Erythroplakia; PL: Palatal lesion; OSMF: Oral Submucous fibrosis; LP: Lichen planus.
Sensitivity analyses of precancerous lesions and conditions showing pooled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| High (52) | 4.6 (4.2-5.0) | 1.6 (0.9-2.3) | 11.0 (8.2-13.8) | 4.0 (3.6-4.4) | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) |
| Moderate (71) | 6.6 (5.9-7.2) | 1.6 (0.5-2.7) | 8.2 (5.2-11.2) | 3.3 (3.0-3.5) | 1.3 (1.1-1.5) |
| Low (7) | 1.4 (0.9-1.8) | One study | One study | 2.8 (1.3-4.3) | No study |
LKP: Leukoplakia; ERP: Erythroplakia; PL: Palatal lesion; OSMF: Oral Submucous fibrosis; LP: Lichen planus.
Figure 2Forest plot for the meta-analysis of erythroplakia prevalence (pooled community and hospital based studies).
Figure 3Forest plot for the prevalence of palatal lesion in reverse smoker’s. A: Community based studies; B: Pooled community and hospital-based studies.