↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for managing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
46 tweeters
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for managing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012432.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie H Beth-Tasdogan, Benjamin Mayer, Heba Hussein, Oliver Zolk

Abstract

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab and antiangiogenic agents) and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, the occurrence of this adverse drug reaction may be rare (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment) or common (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs.To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 23 November 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 November 2016), and Embase Ovid (23 May 2016 to 23 November 2016). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Embase Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included five RCTs (1218 participants) in the review. Three trials focused on the prophylaxis of MRONJ. Two trials investigated options for the treatment of established MRONJ. The RCTs included only participants treated with bisphosphonates and, thus, did not cover the entire spectrum of medications associated with MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJOne trial compared standard care with regular dental examinations in three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ: RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39 (253 participants; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated.As dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ, one trial investigated the effect of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) for preventing MRONJ in people with cancer undergoing dental extractions. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute a benefit of PRGF on MRONJ incidence when compared with standard treatment (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51; 176 participants; very low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes were not reported. In another trial comparing wound closure by primary intention with wound closure by secondary intention after dental extractions in people treated with oral bisphosphonates (700 participants), no cases of intraoperative complications or postoperative MRONJ were observed. QoL was not investigated. Treatment of MRONJOne trial analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone. HBO in addition to standard care did not significantly improve healing from MRONJ compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56; 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18; 46 participants included in the analysis; very low-quality evidence). QoL data were presented qualitatively as intragroup comparisons; hence, an effect estimate of treatment on QoL was not possible. Other secondary outcomes were not reported.The other RCT found no significant difference between autofluorescence- and tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ at any timepoint (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 34 participants included in the analysis; very low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes were not reported. Prophylaxis of MRONJOne open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations in three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of MRONJ in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be low.There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of either of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ (i.e. PRGF inserted into the postextraction alveolus during dental extractions, and wound closure by primary or secondary intention after dental extractions). Treatment of MRONJAvailable evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit for hyperbaric oxygen therapy as an adjunct to conventional therapy. There is also insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about autofluorescence-guided versus tetracycline fluorescence-guided bone surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 40 23%
Student > Master 40 23%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Other 15 9%
Other 39 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 48%
Unspecified 55 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 16 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#444,188
of 13,851,189 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,303
of 10,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,362
of 275,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,851,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 275,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.