Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

741 questions · 808 findings · 27 reviews · Oral medicine and oral cancer · related questions CL0289

No studies found 95 · 11.8%GRADE not reported 498 · 61.6%Very low 134 · 16.6%Low 53 · 6.6%Moderate 27 · 3.3%High 1 · 0.1%

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Time to complete healing · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)
1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Amount of analgesia · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Recurrence of lesions · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Duration of viral shedding · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)
1 finding from 1 review

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Relief of pain · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)
1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic valaciclovir (lower dose) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (higher dose)

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (acute leukaemia; chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation)

Prophylactic valaciclovir (lower dose) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (higher dose); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Length of hospital stay · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Viral isolates (HSV isolates identified, with or without clinical symptoms) · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) led to lower viral isolates (HSV isolates identified, with or without clinical… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Amount of analgesia · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic valaciclovir (lower dose) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (higher dose)

Viral isolates · Patients being treated for cancer (acute leukaemia; chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation)
1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) led to lower presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Length of hospital stay · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Recurrence of lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic oral acyclovir vs placebo or no treatment

Duration and time of healing of intraoral (oral) lesions; number of individuals with oral lesions · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)

Systemic oral acyclovir led to lower number of individuals with oral lesions (8 days after… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Instrumental assessment: nasalance score (nasometry and pressure-flow measure) · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic oral acyclovir vs placebo or no treatment

Duration and time of healing of extraoral lesions; development of new extraoral lesions · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)

Systemic oral acyclovir led to lower number of individuals who developed new extraoral lesions after… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Instrumental assessment: velopharyngeal complete closure and gap size (videonasopharyngoscopy and multiview videofluoroscopy) · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
    3 months post-operatively
    Complete closure occurred in 32 (86%) of the participants in group 1 (MIPP) and in 31 (89%) in group 2, P > 0.05. After eliminating the nine patients with residual velopharyngeal insufficiency, the post-operative gap…
    1 study · 72 participants
    GRADE not reported