What do systematic reviews say?

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs LongoVital (herbal component alone)

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 months
  A single trial at high risk of bias (Kolseth 2005) randomised participants to the herbal component of LongoVital alone or LongoVital with herbal plus vitamin component. Data presented as medians with 95% CIs,…
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs LongoVital (herbal component alone)

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 months
  Reported adverse events were minor and evenly distributed between the groups (Kolseth 2005).
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in general degree of discomfort compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 to 6 months
  MD -0.30 [-0.37, 0.97]
  1 study · 50 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in number of days of pain (monthly average) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 to 6 months
  MD -3.80 [-9.39, 1.79]
  1 study · 50 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in mean size of ulcers compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 to 6 months
  MD -0.30 [-0.56, 0.04]
  1 study · 50 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in number of days of ulcers (monthly average) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 to 6 months
  MD -0.80 [-3.30, 1.70]
  1 study · 50 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 months
  Kolseth 2005 (high risk of bias): 40 patients randomised to the herbal component of LongoVital alone or placebo; data presented as medians with 95% CIs, unsuitable for further analysis; no statistically significant…
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported adverse events were minor and evenly distributed between the groups (Kolseth 2005). 'Very few and mostly harmless side-effects' were observed (Bratel 2005).
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Daily chewing gum for 2 weeks or longer vs No gum chewing or control

codex

• The effect of gum chewing on xerostomia and salivary flow rate in elderly and medically compromised subjects: a… 2023 All outcomes

  2 to 12 weeks · Meta-regression slope for change in standardized salivary flow rate per additional week of chewing · Meta-regression by chewing duration
  SMD per week 0.06
  6 studies · 291 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs placebo

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 months
  Forty patients were randomised to receive LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin) or placebo (Kolseth 2005). Data presented as medians with 95% confidence intervals, unsuitable for further analysis. The authors report no…
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs placebo

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 months
  Reported adverse events were minor and evenly distributed between the groups.
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

Epidermal growth factor (EGF), oral spray vs placebo

Epidermal growth factor (EGF), oral spray showed no clear difference in interruptions to cancer treatment (radiotherapy breaks longer than… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Radiotherapy to the head and neck
  RR 4.38 [0.25, 75.44]
  1 study · 113 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral cytology (e.g. OralCDx brush biopsy, CytID) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral cytology (e.g. brush biopsy) was added to the list of eligible index tests in this update; no eligible studies evaluated it (evidence gap).
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) across the 3 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.96), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) across the 3 studies. Prevalence 12.2% to 30.9%. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating light-based detection.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low