Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Acceptance and perceived efficacy of intraoral versus extraoral photobiomodulation for oral mucositis prevention in pediatric patients.
Trial report 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare acceptance, tolerability, and perceived efficacy of extraoral (EO) and intraoral (IO) photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for oral mucositis (OM) prevention in pediatric oncology patients.
methodsCaregivers of 32 pediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy completed a structured questionnaire after their children experienced both intraoral and extraoral PBMT for oral mucositis prevention during different chemotherapy cycles within a randomized clinical study. Device preference, discomfort, perceived pain control, and reasons for preference were descriptively analyzed.
resultsEO-PBMT was preferred by 65.6% of respondents, whereas 34.4% preferred IO-PBMT. Preference for EO-PBMT was mainly associated with greater comfort and avoidance of mouth opening. Discomfort was reported by 43.8% during IO-PBM and by 6.3% during EO-PBMT, with a statistically significant difference between the modalities (p = 0.001). IO-PBMT was more often perceived to provide better pain control (34.4%), whereas 12.5% favored EO-PBMT.
conclusionEO-PBMT demonstrated greater caregiver acceptance and lower treatment-related discomfort than IO-PBMT. Although caregivers more frequently perceived IO-PBMT as providing better pain control, these subjective perceptions did not correspond to differences in the clinical occurrence or severity of OM between treatment modalities. EO-PBMT therefore represents a feasible and well-accepted approach for supportive care in pediatric oncology.
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.