Discovery - University of Dundee - Online Publications

Library & Learning Centre

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Research output: Contribution to journalScientific review

View graph of relations

Authors

  • Jan E. Clarkson
  • Helen V. Worthington
  • Susan Furness
  • Martin McCabe
  • Tasneem Khalid
  • Stefan Meyer

Research units

Info

Original languageEnglish
???articleNumber???CD001973
Pages-
Number of pages77
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Journal publication date2010
Journal number10
DOIs
StatePublished

Abstract

Background

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

Search strategy

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 1 June 2010) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

Selection criteria

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

Data collection and analysis

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis).

Main results

Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).

Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5).

Authors' conclusions

There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.
This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Library & Learning Centre

Contact | Accessibility | Policy