| Title |
Systematic review of laser and other light therapy for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-012-1605-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cesar Migliorati, Ian Hewson, Rajesh V. Lalla, Heliton Spindola Antunes, Cherry L. Estilo, Brian Hodgson, Nilza Nelly Fontana Lopes, Mark M. Schubert, Joanne Bowen, Sharon Elad, For the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of laser and other light therapies for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis. A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible. A new recommendation was made for low-level laser (wavelength at 650 nm, power of 40 mW, and each square centimeter treated with the required time to a tissue energy dose of 2 J/cm(2) (2 s/point)) for the prevention of oral mucositis in adult patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation conditioned with high-dose chemotherapy, with or without total body irradiation. A new suggestion was made for low-level laser (wavelength around 632.8 nm) for the prevention of oral mucositis in patients undergoing radiotherapy, without concomitant chemotherapy, for head and neck cancer. No guideline was possible in other populations and for other light sources due to insufficient evidence. The increasing evidence in favor of low-level laser therapy allowed for the development of two new guidelines supporting this modality in the populations listed above. Evidence for other populations was also generally encouraging over a range of wavelengths and intensities. However, additional well-designed research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of laser and other light therapies in various cancer treatment settings. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 223 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 49 | 22% |
| Unknown | 53 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 109 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 64 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,489,401
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,869
of 4,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,406
of 171,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 171,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.