Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,227 questions · 2,562 findings · 156 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 297 · 11.6%GRADE not reported 1,616 · 63.1%Very low 405 · 15.8%Low 144 · 5.6%Moderate 81 · 3.2%High 19 · 0.7%

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Duration to heal oral ulcerations after initiation of treatment · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) vs Ketoconazole (absorbed from GI tract)

Mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) showed no clear difference in mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with ketoconazole (absorbed from GI tract); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Miconazole 50 mg tablet (partially absorbed) vs Miconazole 500 mg gel (partially absorbed)

Clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Miconazole 50 mg tablet (partially absorbed) showed no clear difference in clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with miconazole 500 mg gel (partially absorbed); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) vs Itraconazole

Clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) showed no clear difference in clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with itraconazole (absorbed from GI tract); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Absorbed drug (fluconazole or ketoconazole) vs Antifungal drugs not absorbed from GI tract

Mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Absorbed drug (fluconazole or ketoconazole) led to higher mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with drug not absorbed from GI tract (amphotericin B or nystatin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Absorbed drug (fluconazole or ketoconazole) vs Antifungal drugs not absorbed from GI tract

Clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Absorbed drug (fluconazole or ketoconazole) led to higher clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with drug not absorbed from GI tract (amphotericin B or nystatin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Clotrimazole (partially absorbed from GI tract) vs placebo

Mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Clotrimazole (partially absorbed from GI tract) showed no clear difference in mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Ketoconazole vs placebo

Mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Ketoconazole (absorbed from GI tract) showed no clear difference in mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Clotrimazole (partially absorbed from GI tract) vs placebo

Clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Clotrimazole (partially absorbed from GI tract) showed no clear difference in clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) vs Itraconazole

Mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) led to higher mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with itraconazole (absorbed from GI tract); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Clotrimazole 50 mg (partially absorbed) vs Clotrimazole 10 mg (partially absorbed)

Clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Clotrimazole 50 mg (partially absorbed) showed no clear difference in clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with clotrimazole 10 mg (partially absorbed); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) vs Ketoconazole (absorbed from GI tract)

Clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Fluconazole (absorbed from GI tract) showed no clear difference in clinical: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with ketoconazole (absorbed from GI tract); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Clotrimazole 50 mg (partially absorbed) vs Clotrimazole 10 mg (partially absorbed)

Mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with overt oral candidiasis

Clotrimazole 50 mg (partially absorbed) led to higher mycological: eradication of oral candidiasis compared with clotrimazole 10 mg (partially absorbed); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Maximum voluntary jaw opening (mm), change from baseline · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) showed no clear difference in maximum voluntary jaw opening (mm), change from baseline compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Reported pain (mm on VAS), change from baseline · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) showed no clear difference in reported pain (mm on VAS), change from baseline compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) showed no clear difference in brief Pain Inventory (BPI) - pain intensity, change from baseline compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Pain-free maximum jaw opening (mm), change from baseline · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) showed no clear difference in pain-free maximum jaw opening (mm), change from baseline compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) - pain interference, change from baseline · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) showed no clear difference in brief Pain Inventory (BPI) - pain interference, change from baseline compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Pain during function (proportion without significant improvement) · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) led to lower pain during function (proportion without significant improvement) compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Six participants in the glucosamine group did not experience significant improvement in TMJ pain compared with seven in the ibuprofen group (Analysis 3.1); Fisher's exact test P = 0.73 (not significant, per the authors).
    1 study · 45 participants
    GRADE not reported