ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Oral cancer and the impact of glossectomy: challenges and pathways to recovery.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Glossectomy is performed to treat and extract the malignant lesions of the tongue. The purpose of the study was to explore the effects of glossectomy on speech and introduction to speech therapy. It also focused on the mental health of patients with oral cancer during and after treatment including issues of financial burden, reentering society, and quality of life post treatment. Methods: The systematic review was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, focusing on studies published between 2001 and 2025. The review included cross-sectional and prospective studies, original research, and review articles. Relevant primary studies were assessed based on predetermined inclusion criteria to ensure alignment with the research objectives. Results: The reviewed literature showed high-quality studies with minimal bias. Findings indicated that oral cancer patients undergoing partial glossectomy have a better chance for speech retention, facilitated by speech therapy methods. Regarding cost, early-stage intervention with single-modality treatments were less costly than late-stage, multi-modality treatments. Additionally, concerns regarding appearance and reintegration into society were prevalent among participants, with many facing challenges in resuming daily activities post-treatment. Mental health outcomes revealed that more than 40% of patients experienced worsened depression during treatment. Conclusion: Partial glossectomy is preferred due to its potential for smoother integration to society and improved speech recovery with therapy. Mental health support remains a key focus as oral cancer patients navigate through the ongoing challenges. Systematic Review Registration: https://mjl.clarivate.com/home.
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.