What do systematic reviews say?

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

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).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  RR 0.43 [0.17, 1.09]
  5 studies · 270 participants
  Low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Low-dose methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis after allogeneic HSCT
  RR 1.01 [0.85, 1.20]
  1 study · 122 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  RR 0.52 [0.41, 0.65]
  5 studies · 444 participants
  Moderate

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Chlorhexidine rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (severe) compared with chlorhexidine rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.86 [0.34, 2.18]
  1 study · 133 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  Summary of findings 2 (melphalan/HSCT): Interruptions to cancer treatment - 'No studies assessed this outcome'.
  0 studies
  No studies found
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  RR 0.44 [0.20, 0.95]
  1 study · 80 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs High-dose leucovorin rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (any severity) compared with high-dose leucovorin rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.65 [0.47, 0.90]
  1 study · 81 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Chlorhexidine rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with chlorhexidine rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.89 [0.51, 1.56]
  1 study · 133 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs High-dose leucovorin rinse

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral mucositis (moderate to severe). Not estimable - no participants had developed moderate or severe oral mucositis by the fourth day after chemotherapy when the data were reported (Zhang 2011, Analysis 4.2, subgroup…
  1 study · 81 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes normalcy of diet (days of total parenteral nutrition, TPN) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  MD -2.18 [-4.33, -0.03]
  1 study · 78 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  Summary of findings for the main comparison (5FU solid cancers): Normalcy of diet (days of total parenteral nutrition) - 'No studies assessed this outcome'.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  No studies reported the number of days unable to take medicine orally (whole review).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes duration of interruptions to cancer treatment compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  MD -8 [-9.26, -6.74]
  1 study · 80 participants
  Very low

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes vs Cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy for 30 minutes changes oral mucositis (any severity) compared with oral cryotherapy for 60 minutes (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.89 [0.62, 1.29]
  1 study · 178 participants
  Very low

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty).

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 0.88 [0.69, 1.12]
  1 study · 191873 participants
  Low
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.76 [0.60, 0.97]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  9 years (three cycles)
  The costs associated with the screening programme were reported after three cycles (nine years) (Subramanian 2009) (Additional Table 8). The benefit produced by a screen was 269.31 life-years saved per 100,000 for all…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  No harms were reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer incidence compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]
  1 study · 191873 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.97 [0.79, 1.19]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 0.81 [0.70, 0.93]
  1 study · 523 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.82 [0.71, 0.95]
  1 study · 486 participants
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  Data on quality of life were not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  Across the four cycles (15 years), the reported sensitivity of the visual examination in detecting oral cancer was 67.4% (188/279). No information on the specificity or the positive predictive value of the programme…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Toluidine blue (visual staining) vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality; no eligible randomised controlled trial…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Brush biopsy (oral cytology) vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality; no eligible randomised controlled trial…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fluorescence imaging / light-based techniques vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality; no eligible randomised controlled trial…
  0 studies
  No studies found