SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002
Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A double blind, randomised placebo controlled trial of topical 2% viscous lidocaine in improving oral intake in children with painful infectious mouth conditions.BMC pediatrics · 2011Trial
- A sex-dependent salivary bacterium influences oral mucositis severity after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2024Article
- Parents and children's perceptions of distress related to oral mucositis during haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2014Article
- Treatment of Active Mucositis With Caphosol (Calcium Phosphate): A Retrospective Case-Series.World journal of oncology · 2013Article
- Prevention and management of mucositis in patients with cancer: a review article.Iranian journal of cancer prevention · 2012Review
- Patient perceptions about chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: implications for primary/secondary prophylaxis strategies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, CCTR, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched. Authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: May 2001 (CCTR 2001, issue 3) SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, oral pain, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effects models as no significant heterogeneity was detected (P>0.1). MAIN
resultsFifteen trials involving 876 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR=0.63 95%CI 0.42 to 0.96) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR=0.59 95%CI 0.42 to 0.84; vitamin E RR=0.38 95%CI 0.14 to 0.97). The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and "magic" (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKCA. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash and vitamin E improves or eradicates mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.