ArticlePeerJ2015
Mineral derivatives in alleviating oral mucositis during cancer therapy: a systematic review.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Zinc as a complementary treatment for cancer patients: a systematic review.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Prophylaxis With Oral Zinc Sulfate Against Radiation Induced Oral Mucositis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Four Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Adjunctive Treatments for the Prevention of Chemotherapy- and Radiotherapy-Induced Mucositis.Integrative cancer therapies · 2018Article
- Article
- Oral Zinc Sulfate for Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis: A Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
- Effect of An Evidence-Based Nursing Intervention on the Diagnosis of Oral Mucositis in the Pediatric Stem Cell Transplant Unit.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives. Oral mucositis (mouth ulcers) is a cancer therapy side effect. Costly treatment interventions are often neglected in favor of cost-effective agents. This review assessed the general efficacy of mineral derivatives (a cost-effective agent) in alleviating oral mucositis (OM) during cancer therapy compared to the standard care, or placebo-including a decision tree to aide healthcare workers. Data Sources. Electronic searches of MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CANCERLIT via PubMed, and CINAHL via EBSCO (year 2000 to 11 September 2014) were undertaken for randomised controlled trials. A meta-search strategy extracted content from aggregate online databases. Review Methods. Randomized controlled trials were assessed (participants, intervention, outcome, results, and risk of bias) for inclusion. The author abstracted binary and continuous data synthesised to Hedges' g in a random effects model. The primary outcome measures were severity (incidence of peak oral mucositis, duration of oral mucositis, and time to onset); secondary outcome measures were the incidence of pain, and analgesic use. Serum mineral levels, total parenteral nutrition, and adverse events were discussed. The decision tree was mapped using sensitivity, specificity, pre-test and post-test Bayesian probability. Results. 1027 citations were identified and 16 studies were included (n = 1120; mean age 49 years). Cancer therapies consisted of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chemo-radiotherapy, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Outcome mineral derivatives were zinc (n = 549), calcium phosphate (n = 227), povidone-iodine (n = 228), or selenium (n = 116). Severity was measured across variable OM grading systems: In 13 studies, individuals in treatment groups (n = 958) experienced peak OM less than controls (g = -0.47, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, p = 0.0006); time to OM onset was significantly delayed in treatment than controls (g = -0.51, 95% CI-0.8 to -0.2, p = 0.0002; five studies); OM mean duration, pain incidences, or analgesics use was not significant. The decision analysis favored selenium. Conclusion. The general positive effect trend suggests individuals taking mineral derivatives during cancer therapies are less likely to experience peak OM than those without. However, significant bias and heterogeneity indicates the need for developing further methods in account of diverse protocols and include novel recordings (serum mineral levels and cell signals) in estimating a uniform true effect.
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.