Immunohistochemical analysis of epithelium adjacent to lip cancer: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the immunohistochemical pattern of non-tumoral epithelium adjacent to lip cancer (ANTE) to unveil molecular alterations and potential biomarkers in lip cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search at MEDLINE, EMBASE and proceedings Web of Science, OpenGrey and WorldCat. The PICOS outline (Population: lip cancer patients; Intervention: immunostaining with biomarkers in surgical specimens; Comparisons: ANTE versus LC; Outcomes: primary-to identify the immunohistochemical pattern of peritumoral epithelium and secondary-to assess the immunoreactivity of LC epithelium; and Study design: cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies). RESULTS: A total of 339 records were identified. Seven studies reporting on ANTE and LCs were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 4 of them (p53 immunostaining) were selected for meta-analysis. In the ANTE group, the pooled prevalence of p53 was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66 - 0.82), while in the lip squamous cell carcinoma group this prevalence was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75 - 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Similar immunoexpression was found in lip epithelium adjacent to lip carcinoma, even in epithelia with normal appearance or mild histological alterations. The role of biomarkers in the follow-up of actinic cheilitis patients deserves additional clinical assessment.

Available web-based dental implants information for patients. How good is it?

BACKGROUND: Massive use of the Internet for health issues has raised concerns about the quality of the information available and about consumers' ability to tell "good" from "bad" information. PURPOSE: To assess the quality of patient-addressed, dental implants-related websites in terms of reliability, accessibility, usability and readability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two search engines (Google and Yahoo) were used in this study. The first 100 sites, as listed by each engine, were considered for the study. Each site was categorised and analysed for quality using the DISCERN and the LIDA instruments. The Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) and the Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRES) were used to assess legibility. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 32 single websites entered the study. The median score for the DISCERN instrument (3 [2-3]) indicated serious or potentially important shortcoming in the quality of the information obtained. LIDA scores showed modest percentages for accessibility (79.36 [74.60-85.31]) and intermediate for usability (59.20 (50.46-68.51)) and reliability (55.55 [45.37-66.66]). Legibility indices reached scores within the range of difficult to read (FRES = 51.72 [38.70-55.27]); FKRGL = 12.76 [10.07-14.87]). CONCLUSIONS: Available e-health information on dental implants in English language is difficult to read for the average patient and poor in terms of quality.

Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accessibility to editorial information in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery journals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study using the WOS-Web of Science database in three categories: "Surgery," "Otorhinolaryngology," and "Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine" was designed. Journals were filtered by title and classified under three headings: OMFS specialty; OMFS subspecialty and related sciences; and multidisciplinary journals. Specialty scope (OMFS vs. other); impact factor; path for the manuscript; blinding policy; accessibility to reviewers' criteria; and percentage of acceptance. RESULTS: Only 46 of 330 journals met the inclusion criteria. All OMFS journals provided comprehensive information about the review process, compared to 5 of 27 (18.5%) of Oral Surgery and related sciences periodicals. Most specialty journals do not inform about the blind review mode used (20 of 33; 60.6%). Generally, information about the reviewers' assessment criteria is scarce, but is available from all OMFS journals, which also state the percentage of manuscript acceptance (100% vs. 14.8%). CONCLUSIONS: OMFS JCR journals provide adequate information about their editorial process in terms of path for the manuscript, accessibility to reviewers' criteria, and percentage of acceptance. Additional efforts are needed to increase accessibility to information about blinding policy and average time from submission to acceptance.