ReviewFrontiers in oral health2022
Did you choose appropriate mouthwash for managing chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis? The therapeutic effect compared by a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Pooled it
- The Efficacy and Safety of Nutritional Supplements for Cancer Supportive Care: An Umbrella Review and Hierarchical Evidence Synthesis.Integrative cancer therapiesPooled it
- Effects of sodium bicarbonate solution on tongue coating and oral hygiene in patients with heart failure: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Water-soluble yeast β-glucan accelerates oral ulcer healing in rats via collagen synthesis and epithelial regeneration.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Immunonutrients for radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer: current evidence and future perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Article
- Royal Jelly: Biological Action and Health Benefits.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Mouthwashes: Alternatives and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the most common adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It greatly affects the patients' quality of life and hinders cancer treatment implementation. Treating OM with mouthwash is a widely used strategy that can effectively relieve symptoms and promote healing. However, the wide mouthwash selection confuses clinicians. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of various mouthwash types used to treat OM and provide high-level evidence-based recommendations for OM treatment. Methods: Database search included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to April 21, 2022. The primary outcome was OM score improvement following the World Health Organization grades. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) bias risk assessment tool provided in the Cochrane Handbook assessed the studies' risk of bias. We performed pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects following the PRISMA guideline. Results: The study included 13 RCTs with 570 patients. Pairwise comparisons showed that povidone-iodine was more effective than chlorhexidine (weighted mean difference [WMD], -2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.72 to -2.56) but inferior to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; WMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.34) after one week of mouthwash treatment. Vitamin E (WMD, -0.94; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.85), natural drugs (WMD, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.40), and phenytoin (WMD, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.17) exhibited better therapeutic effects than a placebo after three weeks of treatment. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that povidone-iodine was superior to chlorhexidine in treating OM (WMD, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.20-5.01). Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences. Rank probability indicated that the best OM therapeutic mouthwashes were GM-CSF (54%), vitamin E (24%), and natural drugs (43%) after one, two, and three weeks of treatment, respectively. Conclusion: GM-CSF was the most effective mouthwash type for OM treatment. When considering the cost and effectiveness, povidone-iodine and sodium bicarbonate might be the most advantageous. Furthermore, natural drugs have the same potential in treating OM. Safety and acceptability are their most outstanding characteristic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.