Advances in Optical Adjunctive Aids for Visualisation and Detection of Oral Malignant and Potentially Malignant Lesions

Table 2

Published papers on the use of VELscope in general practice.

Purpose	Paper	Type of study	Sample population	Sensitivity; (%)	Specificity; (%)	PPV; (%)	NPV; (%)	Accuracy; (%)	Notes
Used to detect OPMDs and/or oral cancer	Huff et al. [41]	Parallel cohort study	959 patients presenting to a private practice over a 12-month period received COE only.; 905 presenting to the same private practice over a separate 12-month period received COE and VELscope examination.	—	—	—	—	—	For the COE only cohort, there was a 0.83% prevalence of mucosal abnormalities, with none being potentially malignant.; For the combined COE and VELscope examination cohort, there was a 1.3% prevalence of mucosal abnormalities, with 83% of these being potentially malignant.
	Truelove et al. [42]	Prospective cohort study	620 patients seeking routine or emergency dental treatment at a dental school received both COE and VELscope examination.	—	—	—	—	—	Patients initially examined by dental students before the attending faculty.; 5 dysplasias detected with VELscope were not found by COE.
	McNamara et al. [43]	Prospective cohort study	130 consecutive patients presenting to a screening clinic for routine dental care received both COE and VELscope examination.	67*	6*	6*	67*	—	No abnormalities detected with VELscope that were not found by COE.; 93.8% (30/32) false-positive rate.; 1 false-negative case.; VELscope findings statistically different from scalpel biopsy gold standard (𝑃=0.0001).

∗Calculated based on provided values.
OPMDs: oral potentially malignant disorders; COE: conventional oral examination.