Question · asked by 1 review
Chewing gum vs No chewing gum: Oral mucositis (severe)
- Population
- Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies
- Intervention
- Chewing gum
- Comparison
- No chewing gum
- Outcome
- Oral mucositis (severe)
Chewing gum showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with no chewing gum; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Chewing gum vs No chewing gum Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies · Median 28 days Chewing gum showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with no chewing gum; GRADE not reported. Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2011) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.16 [0.82, 1.64] | 1 study · 140 participants | GRADE not reported |
Chewing gum vs No chewing gum Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies · Median 28 days Chewing gum showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with no chewing gum; GRADE not reported. Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2010) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD000978.PUB4, superseded | RR 1.16 [0.82, 1.64] | 1 study · 140 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2011-02 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.