Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,104 questions · 1,200 findings · 23 reviews · Oral medicine and oral cancer

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 143 · 11.9%GRADE not reported 760 · 63.3%Very low 201 · 16.8%Low 66 · 5.5%Moderate 29 · 2.4%High 1 · 0.1%

Aloe vera gel vs placebo

Participant‐reported pain relief of 50% or greater · People with erosive oral lichen planus

Aloe vera gel led to higher pain (>=50% improvement in symptoms) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 6.16 [2.35, 16.13]
1 study · 45 participants
GRADE not reported

Ciclosporin rinse vs Placebo (vehicle cream)

Pain reduction (participant-reported symptoms) · People with erosive oral lichen planus

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
We were unable to extract data on participant-reported symptoms for Eisen 1990 because there was no breakdown of data for the ELP subgroup.
1 study · 8 participants
GRADE not reported

Topical clobetasol propionate 0.025% vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Partial response (partial or complete response) · People with erosive oral lichen planus

Topical clobetasol propionate 0.025% showed no clear difference in partial response (partial or complete response) compared with topical clobetasol propionate 0.05%; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 1.18 [0.82, 1.70]
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported

Tacrolimus 0.1% vs Topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment

Reduction in target/mean lesion size · People with erosive oral lichen planus

Topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointment showed no clear difference in reduction in target/mean lesion size compared with topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD 0.00 [-1.09, 1.10]
1 study · 29 participants
GRADE not reported

Fluocinonide in adhesive base vs placebo

Side effects · People with erosive oral lichen planus

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
Table 3 (Side-effects). Voute 1993: no side-effects during the study and follow-up period.
1 study · 27 participants
GRADE not reported

Topical clobetasol propionate 0.025% vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Side effects · People with erosive oral lichen planus

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
Table 3 (Side-effects). Carbone 2009: no side-effects.
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported

Clobetasol-17-propionate 0.025% lipid-loaded microspheres vs Clobetasol propionate 0.025% ointment

Pain reduction (VAS 0-100) · People with erosive oral lichen planus

Clobetasol-17-propionate 0.025% lipid-loaded microspheres led to lower pain reduction (VAS 0-100) compared with conventional 0.025% clobetasol lipophilic ointment in hydrophilic…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -18.30 [-28.57, -8.03]
1 study · 45 participants
GRADE not reported

Camomile vs placebo

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Camomile showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.89 [0.62, 1.27]
1 study · 164 participants
GRADE not reported

Indigo wood root vs saline placebo

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Indigo wood root showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with saline (placebo); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.75 [0.5, 1.1]
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported

Sucralfate vs placebo or usual care

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Sucralfate showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo/usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.98 [0.88, 1.1]
3 studies · 222 participants
Moderate

Intestinal trefoil factor vs placebo

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Intestinal trefoil factor showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 1.52 [0.06, 36.39]
1 study · 99 participants
GRADE not reported

Zinc sulphate vs placebo

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Zinc sulphate led to lower oral mucositis (severe) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.05 [0, 0.75]
1 study · 27 participants
GRADE not reported

Glutamine vs placebo or usual care

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Glutamine showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.78 [0.57, 1.08]
5 studies
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Polaprezinc led to lower oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with azulene; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.43 [0.22, 0.84]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Sucralfate vs placebo or usual care

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Sucralfate probably leads to lower oral mucositis (severe) compared with placebo/usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.67 [0.48, 0.92]
7 studies · 428 participants
Moderate

Low‐level laser therapy vs Placebo or no active treatment

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Laser (low level) showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo/sham/no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.91 [0.71, 1.17]
5 studies · 234 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Polaprezinc showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with azulene; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.82 [0.63, 1.06]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Shenqi-fanghou vs no treatment

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Shenqi-fanghou led to lower oral mucositis (severe) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.2 [0.11, 0.36]
1 study · 140 participants
GRADE not reported

Keratinocyte GF vs placebo

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Keratinocyte GF led to lower oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.74 [0.62, 0.89]
7 studies
GRADE not reported

Histamine gel vs placebo

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Histamine gel showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 1.35 [0.91, 1.99]
1 study · 39 participants
GRADE not reported