SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
Interventions for treating oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- The Impact of Cancer Treatment On Oral Structures and the Facial Part of the Skull - Implications for Prosthetic Treatment and Oncological Risk.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- A review of dental treatment of head and neck cancer patients, before, during and after radiotherapy: part 2.British dental journal · 2015Review
- Oropharyngeal candidiasis in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation: update 2011.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral candidiasis, remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. Risk ratios were calculated using random-effects models. MAIN
resultsNine trials involving 658 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Only two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for eradicating oral candidiasis. A drug absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, ketoconazole, was more beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR) = 3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 8.88) and clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50 mg was more effective than a lower 10 mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.60). Of the five trials included in these meta-analyses, three were at high risk of bias and two of moderate risk of bias. Another trial demonstrated no statistically significant difference between a 10 mg dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, and placebo. No differences were found when comparing different absorbed drugs; and comparing absorbed drugs with drugs which are not absorbed. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is weak and unreliable evidence that the absorbed drug, ketoconazole, may eradicate oral candidiasis and that a higher dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, may give greater benefit than a lower 10 mg dose, however, researchers may wish to prevent rather than treat oral candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis 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.