-
Arab Journal of Gastroenterology : the... Jun 2018Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) in resolving erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). However, this first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) in resolving erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). However, this first line of treatment can fail to control symptoms in around 30% of cases, especially in the presence of non-erosive GORD. In situations where the first line of treatment fails, there is a lack of concordance regarding the best strategy to apply. This study presents a systematic review of the trials which have tested second-line treatments after PPI failure.
METHODS
The study was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The systematic review included medical trials written in English which were published between 2000 and 2016 and were retrieved from PubMed and Scopus using the keywords 'PPI-resistant gastro-oesophageal reflux', 'alginate AND gastro-oesophageal reflux', 'hyaluronic acid AND gastro-oesophageal reflux', 'prokinetics AND gastro-oesophageal reflux', 'sucralfate AND gastro-oesophageal reflux' and 'baclofen AND gastro-oesophageal reflux'.
RESULTS
Ten randomised and non-randomised studies were included, which included 1515 patients of both sexes (mean age = 49.19 years, age range = 18-85, males = 700; 46.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
A personalised choice of the best treatment for PPI-resistant GORD should be based on the results of an upper endoscopy and pH/MII monitoring. For patients in situations where the first line of treatment fails, we encourage the execution of trials for testing double doses of PPIs against alternative medicaments.
Topics: Baclofen; Benzamides; Chondroitin Sulfates; Domperidone; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Esophageal pH Monitoring; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Morpholines; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29935866
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajg.2018.02.007 -
Surgical Oncology Dec 2020Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) is a therapeutic modality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases. Complications due to SIRT-induced...
BACKGROUND
Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) is a therapeutic modality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases. Complications due to SIRT-induced gastric ulcers are seen in less than 5% of patients but there is no consensus for management of this rare side effect. We conducted a systematic review to analyze the efficacy of medical treatment of SIRT-induced ulcers.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We developed the research question following the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design (PICOS) format. We identified studies and cases reporting patients with gastric and/or duodenal (=population) ulcers treated with medical therapy with proton pump inhibitor (PPI), antacid, or sucralfate, alone or in combination (=intervention). We did not require that studies include a control group. We included studies reporting the evaluation of the medical and/or surgical treatment (=outcomes).
RESULTS
Out of 219 articles, 29 articles were included, resulting in analysis of data for a total of 51 patients who had a SIRT-induced gastric and/or duodenal ulcer treated with medication, surgery, or both. Twenty-eight patients (55%) were reported to have SIRT-induced ulcers that improved after initiation of PPI, antacid, or sucralfate treatment (alone or in combination). Twenty-three patients (45%) were reported to be refractory to medical treatment and surgery was performed in 7 out of 23 patients (30%).
CONCLUSIONS
About 45% of SIRT-induced gastroduodenal ulcers are refractory to medical treatment with PPI, antacid, or sucralfate, alone or in combination. Surgery is an effective treatment in patients who are refractory to medical treatment and who have intense symptoms.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Peptic Ulcer; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 33157433
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.10.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2007Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oesophagitis arises when reflux of acid from the stomach into the oesophagus causes mucosal inflammation. It is a common problem and a systematic review on the optimum treatment would be useful.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), prokinetic therapy, sucralfate and placebo in healing oesophagitis or curing reflux symptoms or both. To compare adverse effects with the different treatments.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the National Research Register until December 2004 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials assessing the healing of oesophagitis or reflux symptoms or both. Treatment involving PPIs, H2RAs, prokinetics, sucralfate and combinations either in comparison to another treatment regimen or to placebo for 2 and 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviews independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 134 trials involving 35,978 oesophagitis participants. Five RCTs evaluated standard dose of PPI versus placebo in 965 participants. There was a statistically significant benefit of taking standard dose PPI therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Ten RCTs reported on the outcome for H2RA versus placebo evaluating 1241 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking H2RA compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.74,95% CI = 0.66 to 0.84). Three RCTs evaluated prokinetic therapy versus placebo in 198 participants. There was no statistically significant benefit of taking prokinetic therapy compared to placebo in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10). Twenty six RCTs reported the outcome for PPI versus H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics, evaluating 4032 participants. There was statistically significant benefit of taking PPI therapy compared to H2RA or H2RA plus prokinetics in healing of oesophagitis (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.59).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PPI therapy is the most effective therapy in oesophagitis but H2RA therapy is also superior to placebo. There is a paucity of evidence on prokinetic therapy but no evidence that it is superior to placebo.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Esophagitis, Peptic; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate
PubMed: 17443524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003244.pub2 -
Journal of Advanced Nursing Apr 2016The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of clinical trials covering interventions used as prophylaxis for oral mucositis induced by ambulatory... (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of clinical trials covering interventions used as prophylaxis for oral mucositis induced by ambulatory antineoplastic chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND
Oral mucositis in patients undergoing chemotherapy is a side effect that can impact the quality of treatment and can interfere with eating and therapeutic adherence.
DESIGN
Quantitative systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Relevant databases were searched, from January 2002-July 2013, by using the combination of the keywords mucositis, stomatitis, neoplasms, antineoplastic agents, drug therapy, prevention and control and chemotherapy.
REVIEW METHODS
Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts from every cross-reference. The quality of the included studies was analysed by the Jadad Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Data were extracted from the selected studies with a data collection form developed specifically for this purpose.
RESULTS
Of the 23 controlled clinical trials that were identified in this study, five articles evaluated the use of oral cryotherapy to prevent oral mucositis and three studies analysed the prophylactic use of glutamine. Interventions of protocols for oral care, palifermin, allopurinol and chlorhexidine were evaluated by two articles each. Interventions of zinc sulphate, amifostine, chewing gum, sucralfate, recombination human intestinal trefoil factor, kefir and vitamin E were evaluated by one article each.
CONCLUSION
There is strong evidence that cryotherapy can prevent oral mucositis arising from ambulatory treatment with 5-flurouracil chemotherapy. Other interventions, although showing positive results in preventing oral mucositis, require further study to confirm their conclusions.
Topics: Allopurinol; Ambulatory Care; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Chlorhexidine; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Cryotherapy; Fibroblast Growth Factor 7; Glutamine; Humans; Neoplasms; Oral Hygiene; Stomatitis
PubMed: 26626711
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12867 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the optimum treatment is uncertain. It is estimated that pound450 million is spent on dyspepsia drugs in the UK each year.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to determine the effectiveness of six classes of drugs (antacids, histamine H(2) antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, prokinetics, mucosal protecting agents and antimuscarinics) in the improvement of either the individual or global dyspepsia symptom scores and also quality of life scores patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1988 to January 2006), CINAHL (1982 to January 2006), SIGLE, and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. Trials were located through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and text words, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs of any of the six groups with each other or with placebo for non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 73 trials: prokinetics (19 trials with dichotomous outcomes evaluating 3178 participants; relative risk reduction (RRR) 33%; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 18% to 45%), H(2)RAs (12 trials evaluating 2,183 participants; RRR 23%; 95% CI 8% to 35%) and PPIs (10 trials evaluating 3,347 participants; RRR 13%; 95% CI 4% to 20%) were significantly more effective than placebo. Bismuth salts (six trials evaluating 311 participants; RRR 40%; 95% CI -3 to 65%) were superior to placebo but this was of marginal statistical significance. Antacids (one trial evaluating 109 participants; RRR -2%; 95% CI -36% to 24%) and sucralfate (two trials evaluating 246 participants; RRR 29%; 95% CI -40% to 64%) were not statistically significantly superior to placebo. A funnel plot suggested that the prokinetic results could be due to publication bias or other small study effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that anti-secretory therapy may be effective in NUD. The trials evaluating prokinetic therapy are difficult to interpret as the meta-analysis result could have been due to publication bias. The effect of these drugs is likely to be small and many patients will need to take them on a long-term basis so economic analyses would be helpful and ideally the therapies assessed need to be inexpensive and well tolerated.
Topics: Antacids; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17054151
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001960.pub3 -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Jan 2010To identify and evaluate the quality of evidence supporting prophylactic use of treatments for stress ulcers and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Stress ulcers, erosions... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and evaluate the quality of evidence supporting prophylactic use of treatments for stress ulcers and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Stress ulcers, erosions of the stomach and duodenum, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding are well-known complications of critical illness in children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED; LILACS; Scirus. We also scanned bibliographies of relevant studies.
STUDY SELECTION
This systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessed the effects of drugs for stress-related ulcers, gastritis, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted the relevant data. Most randomized controlled trials were judged as having unclear risk of bias. When pooling two randomized controlled trials, treatment was significantly more effective in preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding (macroscopic or important bleeding) compared with no treatment (two studies = 300 participants; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.91; I = 12%). Meta-analysis of two studies found no significant difference in death rates among groups (two randomized controlled trials = 132 participants; relative risk, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-2.79; I = 4%). The rate of pneumonia was not significantly different when comparing treatment and no treatment in one study. When comparing ranitidine with no treatment, significant differences were found in the proportion of mechanically ventilated children with normal gastric mucosal endoscopic findings by histologic specimens (one randomized controlled trial = 48 participants; relative risk, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-9.29). No significant differences were found when comparing different drugs (omeprazole, ranitidine, sucralfate, famotidine, amalgate), doses, or regimens for main outcomes (deaths, endoscopic findings of erosion or ulcers, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or pneumonia).
CONCLUSIONS
Although pooled data of two studies suggested that critically ill pediatric patients may benefit from receiving prophylactic treatment to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we found that high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice is still limited.
Topics: Critical Illness; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastritis; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 19770788
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181b80e70 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Aug 2006To develop a practice guideline report on the questions: What are the optimal methods to prevent acute skin reactions (occurring within the first 6 months of... (Review)
Review
GOALS OF WORK
To develop a practice guideline report on the questions: What are the optimal methods to prevent acute skin reactions (occurring within the first 6 months of irradiation) related to radiation therapy? What are the optimal methods to manage acute skin reactions related to radiation therapy?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Cancer Care Ontario's Supportive Care Guidelines Group (SCGG) conducted a systematic review of literature on this topic. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated to guide clinical decision making, and a formal external review process was conducted to validate the relevance of these opinions for Ontario practitioners.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-eight trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Of the twenty-three trials that evaluated preventative methods, washing was the only practice which significantly prevented skin reaction. Some evidence suggested topical steroid creams and calendula ointment might be effective. None of the five trials evaluating skin reaction management detected a positive effect using steroid cream, sucralfate cream, or dressings.
CONCLUSIONS
Skin washing, including gentle washing with water alone with or without mild soap, should be permitted in patients receiving radiation therapy to prevent acute skin reaction. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute specific topical or oral agents for the prevention or management of acute skin reaction. In the expert opinion from the SCGG, the use of a plain, non-scented, lanolin-free hydrophilic cream may be helpful in preventing radiation skin reactions. In addition, a low dose (i.e., 1%) corticosteroid cream may be beneficial in the reduction of itching and irritation.
Topics: Acute Disease; Bandages; Baths; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatologic Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Neoplasms; Ontario; Radiodermatitis; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Steroids
PubMed: 16758176
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-006-0063-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2004The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the optimum treatment is uncertain. It is estimated that 450 million pounds is spent on dyspepsia drugs in the UK each year.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to determine the effectiveness of six classes of drugs (antacids, histamine H2 antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, prokinetics, mucosal protecting agents and antimuscarinics) in the improvement of either the individual or global dyspepsia symptom scores and also quality of life scores patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were located through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and text words, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs of any of the six groups with each other or with placebo for non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected on dyspeptic symptom scores either individual or global symptom assessments and also quality of life scores and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 11796 citations were obtained. 157 trials were retrieved and 98 trials fulfilled our eligibility criteria. However, subsequent data extraction was not possible in 31 trials. The final 67 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Prokinetics (14 trials with dichotomous outcomes generating 1053 patients; relative risk reduction [RRR] = 48%; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 27% to 63%), H2RAs (11 trials generating 2,164 patients; RRR = 22%; 95% CI = 7% to 35%) and PPIs (8 trials generating 3,293 patients; RRR = 14%; 95% CI = 5% to 22%) were significantly more effective than placebo. Bismuth salts (6 trials generating 311 patients; RRR = 40%; 95% CI = -3 to 65%) were superior to placebo but this was of marginal statistical significance. Antacids (one trial generating 109 patients; RRR = -2%; 95% CI = -36% to 24%) and sucralfate (two trials generating 246 patients; RRR = 29%; 95% CI = -40% to 64%) were not statistically significantly superior to placebo. A funnel plot suggested that the prokinetic and H2RA results could be due to publication bias.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that anti-secretory therapy may be effective in NUD. The trials evaluating prokinetic therapy are difficult to interpret as the meta-analysis result could have been due to publication bias. The effect of these drugs is likely to be small and many patients will need to take them on a long-term basis so economic analyses would be helpful and ideally the therapies assessed need to be inexpensive and well tolerated.
Topics: Antacids; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15495023
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001960.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) and yet the pathophysiology of this condition has been poorly characterised and the optimum treatment is uncertain. It is estimated that pound 450 million is spent on dyspepsia drugs in the UK each year.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to determine the effectiveness of six classes of drugs (antacids, histamine H2 antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, prokinetics, mucosal protecting agents and antimuscarinics) in the improvement of either the individual or global dyspepsia symptom scores and also quality of life scores patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were located through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and text words, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs of any of the six groups with each other or with placebo for non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected on dyspeptic symptom scores either individual or global symptom assessments and also quality of life scores and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 11796 citations were obtained. 155 trials were retrieved and 96 trials fulfilled our eligibility criteria. However, subsequent data extraction was not possible in 31 trials. The final 65 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Prokinetics (14 trials with dichotomous outcomes generating 1053 patients; relative risk reduction [RRR] = 48%; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 27% to 63%), H2RAs (11 trials generating 2,164 patients; RRR = 22%; 95% CI = 7% to 35%) and PPIs (7 trials generating 3,031 patients; RRR = 14%; 95% CI = 5% to 23%) were significantly more effective than placebo. Bismuth salts (6 trials generating 311 patients; RRR = 40%; 95% CI = -3 to 65%) were superior to placebo but this was of marginal statistical significance. Antacids (one trial generating 109 patients; RRR = -2%; 95% CI = -36% to 24%) and sucralfate (two trials generating 246 patients; RRR = 29%; 95% CI = -40% to 64%) were not statistically significantly superior to placebo. A funnel plot suggested that the prokinetic and H2RA results could be due to publication bias.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that anti-secretory therapy may be effective in NUD. The trials evaluating prokinetic therapy are difficult to interpret as the meta-analysis result could have been due to publication bias. The effect of these drugs is likely to be small and many patients will need to take them on a long-term basis so economic analyses would be helpful and ideally the therapies assessed need to be inexpensive and well tolerated.
Topics: Antacids; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12535421
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001960 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2020To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral...
Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines.
PURPOSE
To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible.
RESULTS
A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositis-associated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible.
CONCLUSIONS
Of the agents studied for the management of OM in this paper, the evidence supports a Suggestion in favor of topical morphine 0.2% in H&N cancer patients treated with RT-CT for the treatment of OM-associated pain.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Anesthetics; Anti-Infective Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Guidelines as Topic; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Mucositis; Stomatitis
PubMed: 32052137
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05181-6