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...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
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: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Frontiers in Oral Health - Frontiers Media S.A., 2021, 3(2023) |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:3 ; year:2023 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.3389/froh.2022.977830 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ081377088 |
---|
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 |
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 |