Question · asked by 1 review
GM-CSF vs placebo or no treatment: Improvement in mucositis
- Population
- People with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or both) who have oral mucositis
- Intervention
- GM-CSF
- Comparison
- placebo or no treatment
- Outcome
- Improvement in mucositis
Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) led to higher improvement in mucositis compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) vs Placebo or no treatment Improvement in mucositis · People with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or both) who have oral mucositis · End of radiotherapy Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) led to higher improvement in mucositis compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported. Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 4.23 [1.35, 13.24] | 1 study · 61 participants | GRADE not reported |
Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) vs Placebo or no treatment Improvement in mucositis · People with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or both) who have oral mucositis · 14 days Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) showed no clear difference in improvement in mucositis compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported. Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 2.09 [0.77, 5.68] | 1 study · 51 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 treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2010-06 | 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.