Trial reportBMC cancer2025
Interrater reliability in the assessment of oral mucositis among patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy: a multicenter comparison between specialized dentists and registered nurses.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03203733 (Cryoprotection of Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis After Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation, a Randomized Study), which is not on this 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.
Cryoprotection of Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis After Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation, a Randomized Study
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
backgroundAccurate diagnosis of oral mucositis (OM) is essential for effective management and plays a critical role in ensuring reliable outcomes in clinical trials evaluating OM-prevention and treatment strategies. Currently, no evidence-based guidelines specify which clinical profession should be primarily responsible for OM assessments in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy. In most Scandinavian countries, nurses perform daily OM assessments, while dentists specialized in orofacial medicine (considered the gold standard) conduct supplementary evaluations several times per week. However, the concordance between nurses' assessments and those conducted by dentists specialized in orofacial medicine remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability in of OM assessments between these two professions.
methodsThis study utilized data from a randomized, blinded, multicenter, parallel-group, phase 3 trial conducted at five university hospitals in Sweden and Norway. A total of 127 patients aged 18 years or older, diagnosed with multiple myeloma or lymphoma, and scheduled to receive high-dose conditioning chemotherapy in preparation for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, were included. The primary objective was to evaluate the interrater reliability of OM assessments across all severity grades using the World Health Organization (WHO) oral toxicity scale (grades 0-4). The secondary objective was to evaluate the interrater reliability of OM assessments across all severity grades at each individual study site.
resultsOverall interrater reliability between nurses and dentists specialized in orofacial was found to be fair for OM of any grade (κ = 0.211, p < 0.001). However, agreement levels at individual study sites ranged from no agreement to fair agreement.
conclusionThe interrater reliability in the assessment of oral mucositis between dentists specialized in orofacial medicine and nurses ranged from no-, to fair agreement. This highlights the need for targeted interventions to improve nurses' assessment skills or to integrate a specialized dentist as a permanent member of the multidisciplinary team in oncology and hematology settings. Trial registration This study is based on data from a previously registered clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT03203733, Registered on November 20, 2020).
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.