Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Xue Wang [verfasserIn] Li Zeng [verfasserIn] Xue Feng [verfasserIn] Na Zhao [verfasserIn] Na Feng [verfasserIn] Xin Du [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Frontiers in Oral Health - Frontiers Media S.A., 2021, 3(2023)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:3 ; year:2023

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3389/froh.2022.977830

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ081377088

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ081377088
003	DE-627
005	20230310213333.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230310s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3389/froh.2022.977830 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ081377088
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RK1-715
100	0		\|a Xue Wang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.
650		4	\|a oral mucositis
650		4	\|a cancer
650		4	\|a radiotherapy
650		4	\|a chemotherapy
650		4	\|a mouthwash
650		4	\|a network analysis
653		0	\|a Dentistry
700	0		\|a Li Zeng \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Xue Feng \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Na Zhao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Na Feng \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Xin Du \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Frontiers in Oral Health \|d Frontiers Media S.A., 2021 \|g 3(2023) \|w (DE-627)1727560485 \|w (DE-600)3034919-9 \|x 26734842 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:3 \|g year:2023
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 3 \|j 2023

Indexfelder

author_variant	x w xw l z lz x f xf n z nz n f nf x d xd
matchkey_str	article:26734842:2023----::iyuhoeprpitmuhahomngnceoaiteaynueoamcstshteaetcfeto
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
callnumber-subject-code	RK
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.3389/froh.2022.977830 doi (DE-627)DOAJ081377088 (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Xue Wang verfasserin aut Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic. oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis Dentistry Li Zeng verfasserin aut Xue Feng verfasserin aut Na Zhao verfasserin aut Na Feng verfasserin aut Xin Du verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oral Health Frontiers Media S.A., 2021 3(2023) (DE-627)1727560485 (DE-600)3034919-9 26734842 nnns volume:3 year:2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2023
spelling	10.3389/froh.2022.977830 doi (DE-627)DOAJ081377088 (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Xue Wang verfasserin aut Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic. oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis Dentistry Li Zeng verfasserin aut Xue Feng verfasserin aut Na Zhao verfasserin aut Na Feng verfasserin aut Xin Du verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oral Health Frontiers Media S.A., 2021 3(2023) (DE-627)1727560485 (DE-600)3034919-9 26734842 nnns volume:3 year:2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2023
allfields_unstemmed	10.3389/froh.2022.977830 doi (DE-627)DOAJ081377088 (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Xue Wang verfasserin aut Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic. oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis Dentistry Li Zeng verfasserin aut Xue Feng verfasserin aut Na Zhao verfasserin aut Na Feng verfasserin aut Xin Du verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oral Health Frontiers Media S.A., 2021 3(2023) (DE-627)1727560485 (DE-600)3034919-9 26734842 nnns volume:3 year:2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2023
allfieldsGer	10.3389/froh.2022.977830 doi (DE-627)DOAJ081377088 (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Xue Wang verfasserin aut Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic. oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis Dentistry Li Zeng verfasserin aut Xue Feng verfasserin aut Na Zhao verfasserin aut Na Feng verfasserin aut Xin Du verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oral Health Frontiers Media S.A., 2021 3(2023) (DE-627)1727560485 (DE-600)3034919-9 26734842 nnns volume:3 year:2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2023
allfieldsSound	10.3389/froh.2022.977830 doi (DE-627)DOAJ081377088 (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Xue Wang verfasserin aut Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic. oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis Dentistry Li Zeng verfasserin aut Xue Feng verfasserin aut Na Zhao verfasserin aut Na Feng verfasserin aut Xin Du verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Oral Health Frontiers Media S.A., 2021 3(2023) (DE-627)1727560485 (DE-600)3034919-9 26734842 nnns volume:3 year:2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2023
language	English
source	In Frontiers in Oral Health 3(2023) volume:3 year:2023
sourceStr	In Frontiers in Oral Health 3(2023) volume:3 year:2023
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis Dentistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Frontiers in Oral Health
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Xue Wang @@aut@@ Li Zeng @@aut@@ Xue Feng @@aut@@ Na Zhao @@aut@@ Na Feng @@aut@@ Xin Du @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	1727560485
id	DOAJ081377088
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ081377088</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310213333.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230310s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/froh.2022.977830</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ081377088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xue Wang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">oral mucositis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">radiotherapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">chemotherapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">mouthwash</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">network analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Li Zeng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xue Feng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Na Zhao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Na Feng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xin Du</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Oral Health</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2021</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2023)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1727560485</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3034919-9</subfield><subfield code="x">26734842</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Xue Wang
spellingShingle	Xue Wang misc RK1-715 misc oral mucositis misc cancer misc radiotherapy misc chemotherapy misc mouthwash misc network analysis misc Dentistry Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
authorStr	Xue Wang
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)1727560485
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RK1-715
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	26734842
topic_title	RK1-715 Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis oral mucositis cancer radiotherapy chemotherapy mouthwash network analysis
topic	misc RK1-715 misc oral mucositis misc cancer misc radiotherapy misc chemotherapy misc mouthwash misc network analysis misc Dentistry
topic_unstemmed	misc RK1-715 misc oral mucositis misc cancer misc radiotherapy misc chemotherapy misc mouthwash misc network analysis misc Dentistry
topic_browse	misc RK1-715 misc oral mucositis misc cancer misc radiotherapy misc chemotherapy misc mouthwash misc network analysis misc Dentistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Frontiers in Oral Health
hierarchy_parent_id	1727560485
hierarchy_top_title	Frontiers in Oral Health
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)1727560485 (DE-600)3034919-9
title	Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ081377088 (DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737
title_full	Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis
author_sort	Xue Wang
journal	Frontiers in Oral Health
journalStr	Frontiers in Oral Health
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Xue Wang Li Zeng Xue Feng Na Zhao Na Feng Xin Du
container_volume	3
class	RK1-715
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Xue Wang
doi_str_mv	10.3389/froh.2022.977830
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? the therapeutic effect compared by a bayesian network meta-analysis
callnumber	RK1-715
title_auth	Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
abstract	BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.
abstractGer	BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.
abstract_unstemmed	BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
url	https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830 https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842
remote_bool	true
author2	Li Zeng Xue Feng Na Zhao Na Feng Xin Du
author2Str	Li Zeng Xue Feng Na Zhao Na Feng Xin Du
ppnlink	1727560485
callnumber-subject	RK - Dentistry
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3389/froh.2022.977830
callnumber-a	RK1-715
up_date	2024-07-03T19:38:09.228Z
_version_	1803587933160079360
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ081377088</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310213333.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230310s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/froh.2022.977830</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ081377088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xue Wang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BackgroundOral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment.MethodsDatabase search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline.ResultsThe study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.72 to −2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.03 to −0.85), natural drugs (WMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20–5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively.ConclusionGM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">oral mucositis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">radiotherapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">chemotherapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">mouthwash</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">network analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Li Zeng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xue Feng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Na Zhao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Na Feng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xin Du</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Oral Health</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2021</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2023)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1727560485</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3034919-9</subfield><subfield code="x">26734842</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.977830</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b5cc67b19bbe44a29beab1ed964b5737</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2022.977830/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2673-4842</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399987

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?