Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021
Can cryoprevention of oral mucositis be obtained at a higher temperature?
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cryopreventive temperatures prior to chemotherapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Trial
- Recent advances in oral cryotherapy for the management of anticancer therapy-induced oral mucositis.Future science OA · 2025Review
- 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
- An extraoral approach to intraoral cooling-a feasibility study in non-cancer patients.BMC oral health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIce chips (IC) have successfully been used to prevent the development of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM). Although effective, IC entails several shortcomings and may open avenues for systemic infections as the water used may be contaminated by microorganisms, which may jeopardise the medical rehabilitation of an already immunosuppressed patient. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability profile of a novel intraoral cooling device (ICD). SUBJECTS AND
methodsIn total, 20 healthy volunteers were enrolled in this randomised crossover study. Intraoral temperatures were registered using an IR camera, at baseline and following 30 and 60 min of cooling with the ICD, set to 8 °C or 15 °C. Following each cooling session, tolerability was assessed using a questionnaire.
resultsA statistically significant difference in the intraoral temperature was observed using 8 °C compared with 15 °C, following both 30 (1.87 °C, p < 0.001) and 60 min (2.48 °C, p < 0.001) of cooling. Thus, the difference of the intraoral temperatures was less than the 7 °C difference between 8 °C and 15 °C. Furthermore, 60 min of cooling with 15 °C compared with 8 °C was better tolerated and preferred by 15 out of 20 participants (p < 0.001).
conclusionCooling was better tolerated when the ICD was set to 15 °C compared with 8 °C, although the difference in reduction of the intraoral mucosal temperature was marginal and may not affect cryoprevention of oral mucositis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The ICD has the potential to improve the care for patients with cancer at high risk of developing OM.
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.