Oral mucositis (mean severity on WHO 0 to 4 scale) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment
It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (mean severity on WHO 0 to 4 scale) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Oral pain · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment
3 findings from 1 review
Oral pain was assessed in this subgroup but the study (Kakoei 2013) did not report details of the scale used, so the data could not be used (no usable estimate).
1 study
GRADE not reported
MD -1.93 [-2.37, -1.49]
1 study · 80 participants
Very low
MD -1.5 [-2.11, -0.89]
2 studies · 85 participants
Low
Oral mucositis (any severity) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment
Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
RR 0.59 [0.35, 1.01]
5 studies · 270 participants
Low
RR 0.61 [0.52, 0.72]
5 studies · 444 participants
Moderate
RR 0.98 [0.90, 1.07]
1 study · 122 participants
Very low
Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment
Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
RR 0.43 [0.17, 1.09]
5 studies · 270 participants
Low
RR 1.01 [0.85, 1.20]
1 study · 122 participants
Very low
RR 0.52 [0.41, 0.65]
5 studies · 444 participants
Moderate
Number of days unable to take medicine orally · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Self-efficacy related to oral health · school‐age children and adolescents
Theory-based educational interventions significantly improved oral health self-efficacy (SMD 1.49; low certainty), though between-study heterogeneity was very high.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents
Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health attitude (SMD 9.32; low certainty); the very large effect warrants cautious interpretation.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral health-related quality of life · school‐age children and adolescents
Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health-related quality of life (SMD 7.38; low certainty), with very high heterogeneity.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral health behaviour (1-9 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents
Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health behavior (SMD 2.58; low certainty), with very high heterogeneity.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents
Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health knowledge (SMD 1.09; low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Determinants of oral diseases · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs
Age, education, income, oral-hygiene behaviour, dental-visit pattern and slum/disadvantaged residence are associated with oral disease; gender effects are disease-specific; ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
Fourteen studies reported determinants: older age, less education, lower income, poor oral hygiene behaviour (brushing frequency, technique), infrequent dental visits and disadvantaged/slum residential setting were…
14 studies
GRADE not reported
Noticeable impact of gene sequencing on diagnosing/managing oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…
Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing had a statistically significant impact on diagnosing/managing oral-cavity disorders (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.54); certainty not GRADE-rated.
2 findings from 1 review
Reduction in occurrence of oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…
Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing was associated with a statistically significant risk difference for impact on oral-cavity disorders (RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.26); certainty not GRADE-rated.
1 finding from 1 review
Extraoral masticatory muscle tenderness (number of tender sites), 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 extraoral masticatory muscle tenderness (number of tender sites),… compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies
Oral care protocol showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies
Oral care protocol showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies
Oral care protocol led to lower oral mucositis (any severity) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Cost of oral care · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)
1 finding from 1 review
Only one trial reported on the cost of prophylaxis for HSV (Liesveld 2002). The reported mean pharmacy costs for those randomised to receive aciclovir were $1080 compared to $320 for those initially randomised to…
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
Cost of oral care · 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
For the treatment comparison (aciclovir versus placebo), no data were available for recurrence of lesions, amount of analgesia, days of stay in hospital, cost of oral care or patient quality of life.
0 studies
No studies found