Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23643579›Full record

ReviewOral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology2013

Cost-effectiveness landscape analysis of treatments addressing xerostomia in patients receiving head and neck radiation therapy.

Laura S Sasportas, Drew N Hosford, Maria A Sodini, Dale J Waters, Elizabeth A Zambricki, Joëlle K Barral, Edward E Graves, Todd J Brinton, Paul G Yock, Quynh-Thu Le and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Salivary Gland Bioengineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Where Dysphagia Begins: Polypharmacy and Xerostomia.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Oral evaluation and procedures performed by dentists in patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2014
    Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Laura S SasportasDepartment of Bioengineering, Biodesign Innovation Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. laura.sasportas@centraliens.net
Drew N Hosford
Maria A Sodini
Dale J Waters
Elizabeth A Zambricki
Joëlle K Barral
Edward E Graves
Todd J Brinton
Paul G Yock
Quynh-Thu Le
Davud Sirjani

Funding

TUMOR HYPOXIA--MOLECULAR STUDIES &CLINICAL EXPLOITATIONP01CA067166 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LE, QUYNH-THU XUAN · 1996 to 2017
$25.5M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNCI NIH HHS P01 CA067166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Head and neck (H&N) radiation therapy (RT) can induce irreversible damage to the salivary glands thereby causing long-term xerostomia or dry mouth in 68%-85% of the patients. Not only does xerostomia significantly impair patients' quality-of-life (QOL) but it also has important medical sequelae, incurring high medical and dental costs. In this article, we review various measures to assess xerostomia and evaluate current and emerging solutions to address this condition in H&N cancer patients. These solutions typically seek to accomplish 1 of the 4 objectives: (1) to protect the salivary glands during RT, (2) to stimulate the remaining gland function, (3) to treat the symptoms of xerostomia, or (4) to regenerate the salivary glands. For each treatment, we assess its mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety, clinical utilization, and cost. We conclude that intensity-modulated radiation therapy is both the most widely used prevention approach and the most cost-effective existing solution and we highlight novel and promising techniques on the cost-effectiveness landscape.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansQuality of LifeRadiotherapySalivary Gland DiseasesSalivary GlandsXerostomia

Identifiers

PMID23643579
PMCPMC4018820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.