Chen-Chen Kuo1,2, Ruey-Hsia Wang2, Hsiu-Hung Wang3, Chun-Hua Li2,4. 1. The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center, St. Martin De Porres Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan. 2. College of Nursing, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. College of Nursing, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. hhwang@kmu.edu.tw. 4. Department of Nursing, Yuhing Junior College of Health Care and Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propolis mouthwash in cancer patients with therapy-induced oral mucositis. METHODS: This was a systematic review of randomized control trails (RCTs). We searched ten electronic databases for studies published prior to April 06, 2017. The included RCTs were published in English and Chinese. The Jadad score was used to evaluate the quality of the articles identified. Two reviewers independently evaluated each of the studies. The data were entered into Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software and checked for accuracy. Outcome incidence analysis was performed using odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Of the 352 articles identified, five potentially relevant articles met our inclusion criteria. These 5 RCTs included a total of 209 participants. The Jadad score for methodological quality was 3.60 ± 0.55. No obvious publication bias was noted. The incidence of severe oral mucositis was significantly lower in the propolis group than in the control group (OR = 0.35, p = 0. 003). The corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.18 to 0.70. Between-study heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0.000, p = 0.45). No side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Propolis mouthwash is effective and safe in the treatment of severe oral mucositis. To maintain propolis safety, propolis usage should occur under the supervision of medical staff and health professionals. Future multi-center studies and a clinical protocol are needed to confirm the current findings regarding the efficacy and safety of propolis mouthwash.
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propolis mouthwash in cancerpatients with therapy-induced oral mucositis. METHODS: This was a systematic review of randomized control trails (RCTs). We searched ten electronic databases for studies published prior to April 06, 2017. The included RCTs were published in English and Chinese. The Jadad score was used to evaluate the quality of the articles identified. Two reviewers independently evaluated each of the studies. The data were entered into Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software and checked for accuracy. Outcome incidence analysis was performed using odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Of the 352 articles identified, five potentially relevant articles met our inclusion criteria. These 5 RCTs included a total of 209 participants. The Jadad score for methodological quality was 3.60 ± 0.55. No obvious publication bias was noted. The incidence of severe oral mucositis was significantly lower in the propolis group than in the control group (OR = 0.35, p = 0. 003). The corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.18 to 0.70. Between-study heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0.000, p = 0.45). No side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Propolis mouthwash is effective and safe in the treatment of severe oral mucositis. To maintain propolis safety, propolis usage should occur under the supervision of medical staff and health professionals. Future multi-center studies and a clinical protocol are needed to confirm the current findings regarding the efficacy and safety of propolis mouthwash.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy or radiotherapy; Meta-analysis; Oral mucositis; Propolis mouthwash
Authors: Vladimir R A S Noronha; Gustavo S Araujo; Rafael T Gomes; Samara H Iwanaga; Maralice C Barbosa; Evandro N Abdo; Efigenia Ferreira e Ferreira; Ana C Viana Campos; Alexandre A Souza; Sheila R L Abreu; Vagner R Santos Journal: Curr Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Linda S Elting; Catherine Cooksley; Mark Chambers; Scott B Cantor; Ellen Manzullo; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andy Trotti; Lisa A Bellm; Joel B Epstein; Diana Frame; Henry J Fuchs; Clement K Gwede; Eugene Komaroff; Luba Nalysnyk; Marya D Zilberberg Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Rajesh V Lalla; Joanne Bowen; Andrei Barasch; Linda Elting; Joel Epstein; Dorothy M Keefe; Deborah B McGuire; Cesar Migliorati; Ourania Nicolatou-Galitis; Douglas E Peterson; Judith E Raber-Durlacher; Stephen T Sonis; Sharon Elad Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Soad K Al Jaouni; Mohammad S Al Muhayawi; Abear Hussein; Iman Elfiki; Rajaa Al-Raddadi; Saad M Al Muhayawi; Saad Almasaudi; Mohammad Amjad Kamal; Steve Harakeh Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Mara Luana Batista Severo; Stéfanie Thieme; Felipe Martins Silveira; Raquel Padilha Martins Tavares; Amanda Katarinny Goes Gonzaga; Silvana Maria Zucolotto; Aurigena Antunes de Araújo; Marco Antonio Trevizani Martins; Manoela Domingues Martins; Éricka Janine Dantas da Silveira Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Valerie B O'Donnell; David Thomas; Richard Stanton; Jean-Yves Maillard; Robert C Murphy; Simon A Jones; Ian Humphreys; Michael J O Wakelam; Christopher Fegan; Matt P Wise; Albert Bosch; Syed A Sattar Journal: Function (Oxf) Date: 2020-06-05