PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis may cause considerable patient morbidity. Its prevalence has been reported as ranging from 30% to 39%, although a prevalence as high as 75% has been reported with 5-fluorouracil. This variation may be a function, in part, of the methods of measurement used across different studies. The first purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of oral mucositis in a sample of 127 patients receiving specific chemotherapy. The second purpose was to compare different instruments and techniques for assessing oral mucositis. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: A longitudinal design was used to collect data at four monthly chemotherapy cycles during drug nadir. The methods of measuring oral mucositis included interview (conducted monthly x 4); Eiler's Oral Assessment Guide (monthly x 4); Chemotherapy Knowledge Questionnaire and Behavior Checklist (both at the fourth month); Self-Care Behavior Log (ongoing over 4 months); and medical record review (collected at 4 months). RESULTS: The mucositis prevalence in this one sample ranged from 30% to 69% depending on the method of measurement. The use of multiple instruments and techniques captured a clinical picture of oral mucositis far more detailed than published reports--a picture not revealed with any one instrument or technique. The chart record severely underdocumented the prevalence of mucositis compared to the interview. This discrepancy could reflect under-reporting by the patients, inadequate history taking at provider visits, or perhaps the documentation of only the more severe mucositis or mouth problems in the medical record. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians and researchers must choose their method of measurement carefully in relation to the purpose of assessment. For subjective tolerance of symptoms, the interview technique may be most useful. To test interventions, the use of a quantitative rating instrument is desirable. Intervention studies using multiple measures may require a combination of subjective and objective measures.
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis may cause considerable patient morbidity. Its prevalence has been reported as ranging from 30% to 39%, although a prevalence as high as 75% has been reported with 5-fluorouracil. This variation may be a function, in part, of the methods of measurement used across different studies. The first purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of oral mucositis in a sample of 127 patients receiving specific chemotherapy. The second purpose was to compare different instruments and techniques for assessing oral mucositis. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: A longitudinal design was used to collect data at four monthly chemotherapy cycles during drug nadir. The methods of measuring oral mucositis included interview (conducted monthly x 4); Eiler's Oral Assessment Guide (monthly x 4); Chemotherapy Knowledge Questionnaire and Behavior Checklist (both at the fourth month); Self-Care Behavior Log (ongoing over 4 months); and medical record review (collected at 4 months). RESULTS: The mucositis prevalence in this one sample ranged from 30% to 69% depending on the method of measurement. The use of multiple instruments and techniques captured a clinical picture of oral mucositis far more detailed than published reports--a picture not revealed with any one instrument or technique. The chart record severely underdocumented the prevalence of mucositis compared to the interview. This discrepancy could reflect under-reporting by the patients, inadequate history taking at provider visits, or perhaps the documentation of only the more severe mucositis or mouth problems in the medical record. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians and researchers must choose their method of measurement carefully in relation to the purpose of assessment. For subjective tolerance of symptoms, the interview technique may be most useful. To test interventions, the use of a quantitative rating instrument is desirable. Intervention studies using multiple measures may require a combination of subjective and objective measures.
Authors: Deborah Tomlinson; Peter Judd; Eleanor Hendershot; Anne-Marie Maloney; Lillian Sung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-08-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jane M Fall-Dickson; Victoria Mock; Ronald A Berk; Patricia M Grimm; Nancy Davidson; Fannie Gaston-Johansson Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.592