Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20680355›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2011

Audit to monitor the uptake of national mouth care guidelines for children and young people being treated for cancer.

Jean V Craig, Faith Gibson, Anne-Marie Glenny, Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group and Paediatric Oncology Nurses Forum (CCLG-PONF) Mouth Care Group

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical trials in children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jean V CraigSchool of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. Jean.Craig@uea.ac.uk
Faith Gibson
Anne-Marie Glenny
Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group and Paediatric Oncology Nurses Forum (CCLG-PONF) Mouth Care Group
University of East Anglia · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to review current oral care practices in children being treated for cancer against audit criteria derived from national guidelines, and to compare findings with data from a baseline survey carried out in 2002 prior to implementation of the national guidelines.

methodsA telephone survey was carried out of all 21 haematology-oncology (HO) centres and seven bone marrow transplant (BMT) units within the UK Children's Cancer Study Group focusing on key audit themes of: availability of evidence-based guidelines, oral and dental care prior to and during cancer treatment, oral assessment, prevention and treatment of oral complications.

resultsThe national guidelines were used in 19/25 (76%) settings that employed written guidelines. There was little variation in advice given to patients/parents on basic oral hygiene, and this advice was commensurate with guideline recommendations. Inconsistencies in oral care assessment, reported at baseline, remained commonplace across the majority of settings. In only 10/21 HO centres, it was usual practice for children to undergo dental assessment prior to commencing cancer treatment, indicating no improvement since baseline survey. Few therapies outside of the guideline recommendations were being used. The routine use of preventive nystatin, not recommended in the guideline, had significantly decreased from baseline (by 40%).

conclusionsUptake of national guidelines by HO/BMT settings was good however certain oral care practices fell short of the guideline recommendations. Routine dental checks need to be embedded in practice. Further consideration is needed as to how oral assessment might be used more effectively in informing treatment.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdolescentChildDental CareEvidence-Based MedicineGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHumansMouth DiseasesNeoplasmsOral HygienePatient Education as TopicUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID20680355
OpenAlexW2028599134

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.