ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of single-application topical doxycycline for recurrent aphthous stomatitis.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), an oral mucosal pathosis, can interfere with patients' quality of life, mainly due to its recurrent nature. The etiology of RAS remains unclear and its management is challenging. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy of a single topical application of doxycycline to treat RAS. Online search of the Scopus, Medline (via PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar databases was performed from May to September 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, eligible studies were conducted for healthy patients with the primary diagnosis of RAS who received the treatment. Primary outcomes (Pain scores & healing times) were extracted. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias (ROB) tool was used for quality control. The data were synthesized and a meta-analysis was performed. Five RCTs were included in the systematic review and three were included in the meta-analysis. Two were excluded for insufficient sample size. The overall average healing times in the control and doxycycline groups were 2.695 ± 0.731 and 1.677 ± 0.588 days, respectively (p = 0.274). Additionally, mean pain scores in the control and doxycycline groups were 2.718 ± 0.466 and 2.039 ± 0.790, respectively (p = 0.291). However, one study revealed a significant effect in healing time (0.032). Topical doxycycline appears to have a clinical role in RAS treatment, despite the small number of available clinical studies. Further controlled clinical trials are warranted to confirm study findings.
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.