ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
A qualitative analysis of dental challenges for oncology patients receiving bone-modifying agents.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone-modifying agents (BMAs) play an integral role in cancer care treatments. Their interface with dentistry remains challenging for oncology patients receiving BMAs and their general dental practitioners (GDPs) providing care for them. This article uses qualitative research methods to explore the challenges of dental care for patients and GDPs receiving BMAs.
methodsThe study recruited 10 oncology patients receiving BMAs and 20 GDPs. The oncology patients participated in a focus group (n = 6) or qualitative interviews (n = 4) via telephone interviews. GDPs participated in three separate focus groups (n = 20). The interactions were recorded and transcribed, and thematic analysis was completed.
resultsAnalyses of the results highlighted recurrent themes amongst both patients and GDPs. These could be divided into the awareness of MRONJ, the burden of dental care, treatment planning strategies in this cohort of patients, and multidisciplinary co-ordinated care.
conclusionIntegration of dental services into oncology care remains an important aspect of BMA treatment for oncology patients. This article discusses relevant qualitative factors regarding the onco-dental interface and serves as a real-life template to optimise dental oncology care.
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.