ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Clinical Evidence on the Use of Propolis for Oral Mucositis.
Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer represents a major global public health challenge, and its treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, are frequently associated with adverse effects. Among these, oral mucositis (OM) stands out as a debilitating inflammatory condition that compromises quality of life and may lead to interruption of cancer therapy. Given the limited efficacy of conventional treatments, propolis has been investigated as a natural therapeutic alternative due to its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial properties. This narrative literature review, conducted between 2012 and 2025, included studies indexed in the Public Medical Database (PubMed), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. We analyzed clinical trials that evaluated different forms of propolis administration, such as gel, mouthwashes, oral solutions, and topical applications, in patients with various types of cancer undergoing radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or combined treatment. The results demonstrated a significant reduction in pain, dysphagia, dysgeusia, and OM severity, as well as a delay in the onset and progression of lesions, with a low incidence of adverse effects. However, variability in the chemical composition of propolis and the lack of standardized protocols still limit the reproducibility and comparability of the findings. Overall, these results reinforce the therapeutic potential of propolis for the prevention and treatment of OM in oncology patients, while underscoring the need for long-term, randomized clinical trials to establish optimal concentrations, pharmacological formulations, and standardized application protocols.
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.