↓ Skip to main content

Xerostomia after Radiotherapy for Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer: Increasing Salivary Flow with Tasteless Sugar-free Chewing Gum

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Xerostomia after Radiotherapy for Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer: Increasing Salivary Flow with Tasteless Sugar-free Chewing Gum
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Killerup Kaae, Lone Stenfeldt, Jesper Grau Eriksen

Abstract

Radiation-induced xerostomia is a frequent late side effect after treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancers. This may induce swallowing difficulties, compromised oral well-being, reduced nutrition intake, or speech deficiencies. Consequently, quality of life is often impaired for these patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the possibility to mechanically stimulate residual saliva function by using tasteless and sugar-free chewing gum. It was hypothesized that tasteless and sugar-free chewing gum could immediately increase salivary flow and potentially improve oral well-being when used on a regular basis. From October to December 2014, 31 consecutive patients treated with primary radiotherapy (RT) and concomitant cisplatin (in locally advanced cases) for oral or oropharyngeal cancer consented to participate. All patients had finalized RT 2-8 months prior to participation and suffered from xerostomia. Samples of unstimulated and chewing gum-stimulated saliva were obtained at the entry into the study (Visit 1). For 2 weeks, patients used chewing gum on a regular basis whereupon saliva measurements were repeated to verify the changes (Visit 2). An abbreviated EORTC H&N35 questionnaire was completed for both visits. A small control group consisting of young and healthy individuals also tested the chewing gum. Twenty patients completed the study and an increase in saliva flow was observed for 14 patients. Before and after intervention with chewing gum, an increase in mean saliva output was seen between unstimulated and stimulated saliva for both Visit 1 and 2 (p = 0.008 and p = 0.05, respectively). No change in saliva output was seen in the control group. The chewing gum was able to stimulate saliva output that was seen at the beginning and at the end of the intervention. No improvement in baseline saliva was seen. Relevant changes in subjective measures of xerostomia were seen after 2 weeks of chewing the gum.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 21%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 30 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 36 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,561,374
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#1,112
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,537
of 312,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#8
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 312,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.