ArticleBioMed research international2019
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Herbal extracts in orofacial pain: a systematic review and direct and indirect meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Preliminary evidence of effectiveness of preparations fromFrontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Symptom dynamics through multiphase treatment in acute myeloid leukemia: a cross-lagged panel network analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Comparing the efficacy of a novel mucoadhesive patch containing Nigella sativa 10% with triamcinolone 0.1% in patients with erosive-atrophic oral lichen planus: A pilot study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Article
- The Comparison of Antimicrobial Effect of Nigella sativa Nanoparticle and Chlorhexidine Emulsion on the Most Common Dental Cariogenicic Bacteria.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aims at evaluating the beneficial effect of
methodsFifty-four AML patients were participated in this study and randomly allocated to either the test group or a control group. The patients of the test group received NS oil mouth rinse during 28-day CT, while the participants of the control group received a "magic mouthwash" formula. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence and severity of CT-induced OM in terms of erythema and ulcer. The secondary outcomes were the pain severity score, swallowing function, and the salivary concentrations of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-
resultsNS oil mouth rinse attenuated the progression of CT-induced OM compared with the control formula (AUC = 5.9 vs. 38.4,
conclusionsNS oil mouth rinse is effective in attenuating the severity of CT-induced OM and improves the pain and swallowing function in AML patients.
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.