一项随机对照试验:药物干预对接受牙科治疗的癌症患者口腔黏膜炎的管理

Q4 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Dushyantsinh Vala, Neha Gupta, Prajna P Nayak, Dhaval Niranjan Mehta, Md Waquar Alam, Santosh Kumar
{"title":"一项随机对照试验:药物干预对接受牙科治疗的癌症患者口腔黏膜炎的管理","authors":"Dushyantsinh Vala, Neha Gupta, Prajna P Nayak, Dhaval Niranjan Mehta, Md Waquar Alam, Santosh Kumar","doi":"10.25258/ijddt.13.3.32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Benzydamine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine as mouthwash, amifostine, palifermin, and a placebo were the five treatments that were investigated in this study. Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer treatment, and this study aimed to analyse and compare the effectiveness of these treatments. For the purpose of evaluating the treatments, we used descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and rigorous tests to determine whether or not the means were equal. We took into account standard scores, deviations from the mean, and statistically significant differences. The data showed significant differences in the mean scores of each treatment group (p 0.001), indicating that different treatments had different levels of effectiveness in treating oral mucositis. Benzydamine hydrochloride consistently had superior mean scores and lower standard deviations compared to chlorine dioxide mouthwash, amifostine, palifermin, and the placebo. Oral mucositis may be treated with a variety of different medications, however the research suggests that benzydamine hydrochloride in is the most successful option. These results have significant ramifications for the decisions that should be made for therapy based on evidence, and they highlight the need to compare the relative efficacy of the many drugs used to treat oral mucositis. Additional research is required to examine the underlying mechanisms and unique treatment responses, which will pave the way for more individualised and effective treatment approaches.","PeriodicalId":13851,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmaceutical Interventions in the Management of Oral Mucositis in Cancer Patients Undergoing Dental Treatments: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Dushyantsinh Vala, Neha Gupta, Prajna P Nayak, Dhaval Niranjan Mehta, Md Waquar Alam, Santosh Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.25258/ijddt.13.3.32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Benzydamine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine as mouthwash, amifostine, palifermin, and a placebo were the five treatments that were investigated in this study. Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer treatment, and this study aimed to analyse and compare the effectiveness of these treatments. For the purpose of evaluating the treatments, we used descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and rigorous tests to determine whether or not the means were equal. We took into account standard scores, deviations from the mean, and statistically significant differences. The data showed significant differences in the mean scores of each treatment group (p 0.001), indicating that different treatments had different levels of effectiveness in treating oral mucositis. Benzydamine hydrochloride consistently had superior mean scores and lower standard deviations compared to chlorine dioxide mouthwash, amifostine, palifermin, and the placebo. Oral mucositis may be treated with a variety of different medications, however the research suggests that benzydamine hydrochloride in is the most successful option. These results have significant ramifications for the decisions that should be made for therapy based on evidence, and they highlight the need to compare the relative efficacy of the many drugs used to treat oral mucositis. Additional research is required to examine the underlying mechanisms and unique treatment responses, which will pave the way for more individualised and effective treatment approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25258/ijddt.13.3.32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25258/ijddt.13.3.32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

盐酸苄胺、氯己定漱口水、氨磷汀、palifermin和安慰剂是本研究中研究的五种治疗方法。口腔黏膜炎是癌症治疗常见的不良反应,本研究旨在分析和比较这些治疗的有效性。为了评估治疗效果,我们使用描述性统计、方差分析(ANOVA)和严格的检验来确定平均值是否相等。我们考虑了标准分数、均值偏差和统计上显著的差异。数据显示,各治疗组的平均评分差异有统计学意义(p < 0.001),说明不同治疗方法对口腔黏膜炎的治疗效果不同。与二氧化氯漱口水、氨磷汀、palifermin和安慰剂相比,盐酸苄达明的平均得分和标准差始终较高。口腔黏膜炎可以用多种不同的药物治疗,但研究表明盐酸苄胺是最成功的选择。这些结果对基于证据的治疗决策具有重要影响,并且它们突出了比较用于治疗口腔黏膜炎的许多药物的相对疗效的必要性。需要进一步的研究来检查潜在的机制和独特的治疗反应,这将为更个性化和更有效的治疗方法铺平道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmaceutical Interventions in the Management of Oral Mucositis in Cancer Patients Undergoing Dental Treatments: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Benzydamine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine as mouthwash, amifostine, palifermin, and a placebo were the five treatments that were investigated in this study. Oral mucositis is a common adverse effect of cancer treatment, and this study aimed to analyse and compare the effectiveness of these treatments. For the purpose of evaluating the treatments, we used descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and rigorous tests to determine whether or not the means were equal. We took into account standard scores, deviations from the mean, and statistically significant differences. The data showed significant differences in the mean scores of each treatment group (p 0.001), indicating that different treatments had different levels of effectiveness in treating oral mucositis. Benzydamine hydrochloride consistently had superior mean scores and lower standard deviations compared to chlorine dioxide mouthwash, amifostine, palifermin, and the placebo. Oral mucositis may be treated with a variety of different medications, however the research suggests that benzydamine hydrochloride in is the most successful option. These results have significant ramifications for the decisions that should be made for therapy based on evidence, and they highlight the need to compare the relative efficacy of the many drugs used to treat oral mucositis. Additional research is required to examine the underlying mechanisms and unique treatment responses, which will pave the way for more individualised and effective treatment approaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology
International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmaceutical Science
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology (IJDDT) provides the forum for reporting innovations, production methods, technologies, initiatives and the application of scientific knowledge to the aspects of pharmaceutics, including controlled drug release systems, drug targeting etc. in the form of expert forums, reviews, full research papers, and short communications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信