Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30627521›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of clinical oncology2019

Long-term outcomes of interventions for radiation-induced xerostomia: A review.

Sung Jun Ma, Charlotte I Rivers, Lucas M Serra, Anurag K Singh

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Assessment of combined efficacy ofFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cancer therapy-related salivary dysfunction.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2024
    Review
  11. Does lower dose pilocarpine have a role in radiation-induced xerostomia in the modern radiotherapy era? A single-center experience based on patient-reported outcome measures.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sung Jun MaUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States.
Charlotte I RiversUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States.
Lucas M SerraUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States.
Anurag K SinghUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States.
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Xerostomia, or dry mouth, is a significant problem affecting quality of life in patients treated with radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Strategies for reduction of xerostomia burden vary widely, with options including: sialagogue medications, saliva substitutes, acupuncture, vitamins, hyperbaric oxygen, submandibular gland transfer, and acupuncture or associated treatments. In this review, we sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of patients treated with various interventions for radiation-induced xerostomia. A literature search was performed using the terms "xerostomia" and "radiation" or "radiotherapy"; all prospective clinical trials were evaluated, and only studies that reported 1 year follow up were included. The search results yielded 2193 studies, 1977 of which were in English. Of those, 304 were clinical trials or clinical studies. After abstract review, 23 trials were included in the review evaluating the following treatment modalities: pilocarpine (three); cevimeline (one); amifostine (eleven); submandibular gland transfer (five); acupuncture like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (ALTENS) (one); hyperbaric oxygen (one); and acupuncture (one). Pilocarpine, cevimeline, and amifostine have been shown in some studies to improve xerostomia outcomes, at the cost of toxicity. ALTENS has similar efficacy with fewer side effects. Submandibular gland transfer is effective but requires an elective surgery, and thus may not always be appropriate or practical. The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy, in addition to dose de-escalation in select patients, may result in fewer patients with late xerostomia, reducing the need for additional interventions.

Indexed as

Head and neck cancerQuality of lifeRadiation therapyRadiotherapyXerostomia

Identifiers

PMID30627521
PMCPMC6318483
OpenAlexW2905776005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.