ArticleCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology2017
Innovative intraoral cooling device better tolerated and equally effective as ice cooling.
Article in Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of oral cryotherapy for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Cryopreventive temperatures prior to chemotherapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Trial
- Can cryoprevention of oral mucositis be obtained at a higher temperature?Clinical oral investigations · 2021Trial
- An economic analysis of Chemo MouthpieceJournal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Feasibility and patient reported tolerance of cryotherapy with Cooral mouth cooling device in patients undergoing radiation therapy (CooRay): a pilot study.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Protecting organs-at-risk in cancer therapies through temporary organ displacement: a comprehensive review.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- An extraoral approach to intraoral cooling-a feasibility study in non-cancer patients.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Moderate temperature reduction is sufficient for prevention of 5-fluorouracil-induced oral mucositis: an experimental in vivo study in rats.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2023Article
- Primary evaluation of an air-cooling device to reduce oral mucositis: a pilot study in healthy volunteers.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMost of the patients who receive myeloablative therapy prior to stem cell transplantation develop oral mucositis (OM). This adverse reaction manifests as oral mucosal erythema and ulcerations and may require high doses of morphine for pain alleviation. OM may also interfere with food intake and result in weight loss, a need for parenteral nutrition, and impaired quality of life. To date, there have been very few studies of evidence-based interventions for the prevention of OM. Cryotherapy, using ice chips, has been shown to reduce in an efficient manner the severity and extent of OM, although clinical applications are still limited due to several shortcomings, such as adverse tooth sensations, problems with infectious organisms in the water, nausea, and uneven cooling of the oral mucosa. The present proof-of-concept study was conducted to compare the tolerability, temperature reduction, and cooling distribution profiles of an intra-oral cooling device and ice chips in healthy volunteers who did not receive myeloablative treatment, and therefore, did not experience the symptoms of OM.
methodsTwenty healthy volunteers used the cooling device and ice chips for a maximum of 60 min each, using a cross-over design. The baseline and final temperatures were measured at eight intra-oral locations using an infra-red thermographic camera. The thermographic images were analysed using two digital software packages. A questionnaire was used to assess the tolerability levels of the two interventions.
resultsThe intra-oral cooling device was significantly better tolerated than the ice-chips (p = 0.0118). The two interventions were equally effective regarding temperature reduction and cooling distribution.
conclusionsThe intra-oral cooling device shows superior tolerability in healthy volunteers. Furthermore, this study shows that temperature reduction and cooling distribution are achieved equally well using either method.
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.