Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11869616›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

H V Worthington, J E Clarkson, O B Eden

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H V WorthingtonOral Health and Development, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH. helen.worthington@man.ac.uk
J E Clarkson
O B Eden
Dundee Dental Hospital · GBUniversity Dental Hospital of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HumansMouth DiseasesMouth MucosaNeoplasmsPainPain ManagementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStomatitis

Identifiers

PMID11869616
OpenAlexW4232022183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.