ArticleBMC oral health2024
Early intervention with oral mucosal barrier Protective agents in chronic oral graft-versus-host disease: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barrier Products for Topical Delivery-Insight into Efficacy Testing and Barrier-Boosting Compounds.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Interplay of salivary function, oral health, and psychological well-being in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a longitudinal cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Increased acid sphingomyelinase levels in saliva as oral mucositis severity predictors.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreventing the progression of chronic oral graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is essential for maintaining oral health, improving quality of life, minimizing functional impairment, reducing systemic complications, and addressing treatment challenges. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of early intervention with oral mucosal barrier protective agents in preventing the progression of cGVHD and its impact on oral health, quality of life, and treatment response.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 75 participants, with 34 in the non-oral mucosal barrier protective agent group and 41 in the oral mucosal barrier protective agent group. Baseline characteristics, oral mucosal health parameters, quality of life assessments, and curative effect data were collected and compared between the two study groups.
resultsThe group receiving oral mucosal barrier protectants (n = 41) exhibited significantly lower severity of oral mucositis compared to the group without such protectants (n = 34) (2.12 ± 0.48 vs. 2.56 ± 0.63, P = 0.001) and the incidence of complications was significantly lower in the group receiving oral mucosal barrier protectants (P < 0.05). Additionally, the quality of life assessment showed marked improvements in somatization, emotional management, and social reintegration in the oral mucosal barrier protectant group compared to the group without these protectants (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the assessment of treatment efficacy revealed significantly higher rates of both complete and partial responses in the oral mucosal barrier protectant group, along with a notable reduction in disease progression compared to the group without these protectants (P < 0.001).
conclusionEarly intervention with oral mucosal barrier protective agents was associated with improved oral health parameters, enhanced quality of life, and a more favorable treatment response in the context of cGVHD.
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.