ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Oral health assessment of end-of-life patients with cancer: Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the oral assessment guide and oral health assessment tool in prognosis prediction.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared the Oral Assessment Guide (OAG) and Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) to determine which tool more accurately predicts prognosis in end-of-life patients with cancer.
methodsThis retrospective study included 116 end-of-life patients with cancer. Oral conditions were assessed using the OAG and OHAT. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with survival prognosis as the endpoint and compared the area under the curve (AUC). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the scores in unhealthy conditions using the health status score for each tool as a reference.
resultsThe OAG had a significantly higher AUC at 14 days (0.78 vs. 0.71, p = 0.02) and 21 days (0.72 vs. 0.67, p = 0.03). After adjusting for age and performance status, lips showed significant differences on day 21 under mild/moderate condition (HR = 7.76) and on days 14 and 21 in the severe condition (HR = 38.57 and 38.57, respectively). Saliva showed significant differences on days 21 and 28 in the severe condition (HR = 5.70 and 3.80, respectively). Among the OAG-specific items, voice under severe condition on day 21 showed a significant difference (HR = 3.93), while no OHAT-specific items showed significant differences.
conclusionThe OAG had significantly higher prognostic accuracy at 14 and 21 days. The OAG-specific item voice may account for differences in diagnostic accuracy. The appropriate selection of an oral assessment tool enables the provision of patient-centered oral care, which is expected to alleviate discomfort and facilitate communication between patients and their families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40759803What 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.