ReviewImaging science in dentistry2026
Diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography for early oral cancer detection: A systematic review.
Review in Imaging science in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for the early detection of oral cancer, particularly emphasizing sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Wiley Online Library covering publications from 2015 to 2025, supplemented by manual hand-searching of relevant references. Studies were selected using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) framework. Eligible studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of OCT using histopathology as the reference standard. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and the review methodology followed PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-DTA guidelines. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251112254). Results: Seven studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. OCT demonstrated high diagnostic performance (sensitivity: 81.5%-100%, specificity: 68.8%-100%), with diagnostic accuracy reaching up to 100% in certain settings. Studies that incorporated machine learning approaches, including convolutional neural networks and support vector machines, consistently achieved superior diagnostic performance compared with conventional OCT interpretation alone. Overall methodological quality was generally low, with several studies exhibiting moderate to high risk of bias in specific domains. Conclusion: OCT, particularly when augmented with artificial intelligence, demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy as a non-invasive imaging modality for the early detection of oral cancer. Its capability to identify dysplastic and malignant changes at the microstructural level offers meaningful diagnostic advantages over conventional examination methods. Nevertheless, larger-scale studies employing standardized protocols are required to confirm its clinical utility and support integration into routine oral cancer screening and diagnostic pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.