ArticleClinical oral investigations2015
Cost-effective analysis of topical chlorhexidine in hematologic patients at risk for oral mucositis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Compound staphylococcal lysostaphin for oral mucositis prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients: a non-inferiority randomized trial.British journal of cancer · 2026Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore whether management of mucositis with Chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash could be a cost-effective method to decrease the risk of mortality and economic burden in hemato-oncologic or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis model of prophylactic CHX mouthwash use versus no-CHX mouthwash use for the prevention of oral mucositis was developed for patients undergoing cytotoxic therapy or HSCT. The outcome variable was survival. The primary variables were CHX mouthwash use, probability of mucositis, probability of increased hospital stay, and length of hospital stay. Probability and cost data were obtained from the literature.
resultsOur analysis selected CHX mouthwash use during anticancer treatment as the preferred strategy for the base-case analysis as compared to no CHX mouthwash (marginal value 0.032). There was a $14,391 cost difference per patient between the two strategies.
conclusionThe results of this study suggest that CHX mouthwash use during anticancer treatment results in an increased survival and decreased cost for the population studied. Using our base-case data, an additional 32 of every 1,000 hemato-oncologic or HSCT patients will survive when employing the preferred strategy of prophylactic CHX mouthwash. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CHX mouthwash should be offered for hematologic patients undergoing HSCT or administered with chemotherapy.
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.