Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of photobiomodulation in the treatment of oral mucositis.
Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing in the electronic databases: LILACS, MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and CINAHL and in http://clinicaltrials.gov . Eligibility criteria were randomized, non-randomized, and observational studies that used photobiomodulation for the treatment of oral mucositis. The endpoints were reduction in the severity of oral mucositis, duration of lesions, and pain reduction. For data analysis, the Review Manager 5.4 program was used.
Results: A total of 316 studies were identified, 297 in the electronic databases and 19 in http://clinicaltrials.gov . After removing duplicates, 260 studies were selected for title and abstract reading, of which 223 were excluded. A total of 37 studies were chosen for full reading, of which 6 were included in the review, totaling 299 patients. The treatment used was photobiomodulation. The patients were divided into two groups: the laser group used only photobiomodulation or associated with other therapies, and the control group did not use photobiomodulation. For the endpoint reduction in the severity of oral mucositis (OM), the chance of reduction of the OM was greater in the laser group as compared to the control group. For the endpoints duration of OM lesions and pain reduction, it was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis due to the high heterogeneity between studies. In the interpretation of the meta-analysis, the reduction in the severity of oral mucositis was greater in the group that received photobiomodulation.
Conclusion: Photobiomodulation was effective in the treatment of oral mucositis.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08105-7 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!