ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
A systematic review of staging systems for oral submucous fibrosis: evolution, variations, and clinical implications.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Portable Deep Learning-Assisted Device for Automated Interincisal Opening Assessment and Oral Submucous Fibrosis Lesion Identification: A Translational Clinical Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple clinical, functional, and histopathological staging frameworks for OSMF have been described in the literature. Staging helps clinicians assess prognosis, tailor interventions, and monitor progression. The aim of the study is to collect and analyze the various staging systems for OSMF reported in the literature to date and to identify how these systems have evolved over time. Materials and methods: A comprehensive search using multiple electronic databases and gray literature was undertaken to synthesize evidence on existing staging systems. Two reviewers independently performed the study search and selection process. Results: Eighteen articles (18 staging systems) were finally included. Most frameworks used criteria such as clinical functional (mouth opening) and histopathological features (collagen deposition, fibroblast response, and inflammation) for staging, either individually or in combination. We observed that articles primarily focused on the clinical and histopathological features (1950-1970), functional limitations such as trismus and cheek flexibility (1980-1990), and integrated systems (after 2000). Discussion: Despite many available staging methods, no single system has yet gained universal acceptance due to heterogeneity in criteria, lack of validation, and variability in clinical-pathological correlations. The review underscores the critical need for standardised, evidence-based staging systems that combine clinical functionality with pathological assessment to improve diagnostic precision, prognostic evaluation, and treatment planning. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251134270, PROSPERO CRD420251134270.
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.