Objectives To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks in adults with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes.Design Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. For mortality, we analysed the results with random effects meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.Data sources Medline, EMBASE, Healthstar, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EPOC register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included studies, citation tracking (Web of Knowledge), and contacts with trialists.Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adult populations unselected for disease or risk factors. Health checks defined as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. We did not include geriatric trials.Data extraction Two observers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary.Results We identified 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182 880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (11 940 deaths), and they gave a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (0.91 to 1.17), and eight on cancer mortality (3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings. We did not find beneficial effects of general health checks on morbidity, hospitalisation, disability, worry, additional physician visits, or absence from work, but not all trials reported on these outcomes. One trial found that health checks led to a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared with the control group and an increased number of people with self reported chronic conditions, and one trial found an increased prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. Two out of four trials found an increased use of antihypertensives. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self reported health, which could be due to bias.Conclusions General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses. Important harmful outcomes were often not studied or reported.Systematic review registration Cochrane Library, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.

A significant proportion of squamous cell carcinomas of the oropharynx (OP-SCC) are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and p16 overexpression. This subgroup proves better prognosis and survival but no evidence exists on the correlation between HPV and p16 overexpression based on diagnostic measures and definition of p16 overexpression. We evaluated means of p16 and HPV diagnostics, and quantified overexpression of p16 in HPV-positive and -negative OP-SCCs by mode of immunohistochemical staining of carcinoma cells. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1980 until October 2012. We applied the following inclusion criteria: a minimum of 20 cases of site-specific OP-SCCs, and HPV and p16 results present. Studies were categorised into three groups based on their definition of p16 overexpression: verbal definition, nuclear and cytoplasmatic staining between 5 and 69%, and ≥70% staining. We identified 39 studies with available outcome data (n=3926): 22 studies (n=1980) used PCR, 6 studies (n=688) used ISH, and 11 studies (n=1258) used both PCR and ISH for HPV diagnostics. The methods showed similar HPV-positive results. Overall, 52.5% of the cases (n=2062) were HPV positive. As to p16 overexpression, 17 studies (n=1684) used a minimum of 5-69% staining, and 7 studies (n=764) used ≥70% staining. Fifteen studies (n=1478) referred to a verbal definition. Studies showed high heterogeneity in diagnostics of HPV and definition of p16. The correlation between HPV positivity and p16 overexpression proved best numerically in the group applying ≥70% staining for p16 overexpression. The group with verbal definitions had a significantly lower false-positive rate, but along with the group applying 5-69% staining showed a worse sensitivity compared with ≥70% staining. There are substantial differences in how studies diagnose HPV and define p16 overexpression. Numerically, p16 staining is better to predict the presence of HPV (i.e. larger sensitivity), when the cutoff is set at ≥70% of cytoplasmatic and nuclear staining.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is an important risk factor in a subset of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), but the association with oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas (OCSCC) remains controversial. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of HPV infection in OCSCC. A systematic search on PubMed and EMBASE was performed, including articles assessing the prevalence of HPV-positive (HPV+) OCSCC published from January 2017 to December 2022. OCSCC was considered HPV+ by the detection of HPV DNA, HPV RNA, and/or p16 overexpression in the tumor mass. A meta-analysis was made determining the overall HPV+ OCSCC prevalence. We included 31 studies comprising 5007 patients from 24 countries. The study size ranged from 17 to 940 patients. The HPV+ OCSCC proportion variated widely and ranged from 0% to 37%. Tumors in the tongue were the predominant sublocation for HPV in the oral cavity. The meta-analysis revealed that the overall HPV+ OCSCC prevalence is 6% (95% CI; 3–10%), and only one study found HPV and OCSCC significantly associated. Thus, HPV may not be a necessary or a strong risk factor in OCSCC oncogenesis, and the possibility of a site misclassification of a mobile tongue with the root of the tongue cannot be excluded.