METHODS: Secondary analysis of data extracted from the British Household Panel Survey, a national longitudinal survey (n=5547). Analysis to ascertain whether patterns of attendance for dental check-ups for a period of 10 years (1991-2001) were associated with risk factors for oral cancer such as age, sex, education, social class, smoking status and smoking intensity.
RESULTS: Males, aged over 40 years, less educated manual workers and smokers were significantly less likely to attend for dental check-ups compared with females and younger, higher educated, higher socio-economic class non-smokers (p < 0.05). Throughout the 10-year period, young people, more than older people, had progressively lower odds ratios of attending. Those with more education used dental services more. Heavy smokers were infrequent attendees.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that opportunistic oral cancer screening by dentists is not feasible to include high-risk groups as they are not regular attendees over 10 years. Those who would be screened would be the low-risk groups. However, dentists should continue screening all patients as oral precancers are also found in regular attendees. More should be done to encourage the high-risk groups to visit their dentists.
METHODS: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.
CONCLUSIONS: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.