ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Comparative efficacy of prevention strategies for oral mucositis in breast cancer patients: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various interventions for preventing and alleviating oral mucositis (OM), a dose-limiting toxicity induced by cancer treatment.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to March 19, 2026. The quality of included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2). A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted utilizing R 4.5.1 and the JAGS package (version 4.3.1). The interventions were compared using league tables, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), and heterogeneity testing.
resultsA total of 7,790 articles were retrieved. Ultimately, 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 869 patients were included. According to the NMA, zinc most effectively reduced overall OM (RR = 0.53, 95%CrI: 0.27 to 0.95), while propolis dry extract was optimal for grade ≥ 2 OM (RR = 0.15, 95%CrI: 0.01 to 0.99). bifico significantly decreased overall OM (RR = 0.58, 95%CrI: 0.44 to 0.73) and ranked second for grade ≥ 2 OM. Subgroup analyses showed that professional oral health care and zinc were superior in chemotherapy patients, while MuGard and professional oral health care performed best in targeted therapy patients. Professional oral health care was most effective against grade ≥ 2 OM in the targeted therapy subgroup (SUCRA = 96.17%).
conclusionZinc and propolis dry extract are the most optimal strategies for overall and grade ≥ 2 OM in BC patients, respectively. bifico shows promising clinical potential. Professional oral health care is effective in both chemotherapy and targeted therapy subgroups. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42101732What 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.