Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25789270›Full record

ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2015

Morphine mouthwash for the management of oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer.

Mostafa Sarvizadeh, Simin Hemati, Mohsen Meidani, Moghtada Ashouri, Mahnaz Roayaei, Armindokht Shahsanai

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Management of radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a real-life survey among 25 Italian radiation oncology centers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Clinicians' experience with topical benzydamine and morphine for the management of oral mucositis: adverse effects and barriers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Pathogenesis and Amelioration of Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Is pain part of a systemic syndrome in head and neck cancer?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mostafa SarvizadehDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Simin HematiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohsen MeidaniDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Moghtada AshouriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mahnaz RoayaeiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Armindokht ShahsanaiDepartment of Community Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral mucositis is a debilitating side effect of cancer treatment for which there is not much successful treatments at yet. We evaluated the effectiveness of topical morphine compared with a routine mouthwash in managing cancer treatment-induced mucositis. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty head and neck cancer patients with severe mucositis (World Health Organization Grade III or IV) were randomized into the morphine and magic mouthwash groups. Patients received morphine sulfate 2% or magic solution (contained magnesium aluminum hydroxide, viscous lidocaine, and diphenhydramine), 10 ml for every 3 h, six times a day, for 6 days. Both groups received same dietary and oral hygiene instructions and care. Mucositis was graded at baseline and every 3 days after treatment. Patients' satisfaction and drug effect maintenance were also evaluated.

resultsTwenty-eight patients (mean age of 49.5 ± 13.2 years, 63.3% female) completed the trial; 15 in the morphine group and 13 in the magic group. There was a decrease in mucositis severity in both of the morphine (P < 0.001) and magic (P = 0.049) groups. However, at the 6(th) day, more reduction was observed in mucositis severity in the morphine compared with magic group (P = 0.045). Drug effect maintenance was similar between the two groups, but patients in the morphine group were more satisfied by their treatments than those in the magic group (P = 0.008).

conclusionsTopical morphine is more effective and more satisfactory to patients than the magic mouthwash in reducing severity of cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis. More studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are required in this regard.

Indexed as

Head and neck carcinomamucositispaintopical morphine

Identifiers

PMID25789270
PMCPMC4358035
OpenAlexW2010318197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.