Campos 2020
Supportive Therapie · Version 2.1
|
Referenz (Autor, Jahr, Journal) |
Studientyp Mono- vs. Multizentrisch, Verblindung, Randomisierung, Arme, Fallzahl n, Land, Zeitraum |
Patienten-merkmale Indikation, Alter, Geschlecht (m/w) |
Intervention Fallzahl n, Beschreibung der präventiven bzw. therapeutischen Maßnahme Kontrolle Fallzahl n, Beschreibung der präventiven Maßnahme bzw. therapeutischen Maßnahme |
Zielgrößen Primärer Endpunkt Sekundäre(r) Endpunkt(e) |
Primärer Endpunkt Angaben für Intervention vs. Kontrolle Sekundäre(r) Endpunkt(e) Angaben für Intervention vs. Kontrolle |
Finanzierung |
Evidenzstufe Bei Abwertung: Angabe von Gründen Bewertung des Autors |
|
Campos
2020
Supportive Care in Cancer
Antunes et al. Brazil 2017 Oton-Leite et al. Brazil 2015 Gautam et al. India 2015 Antuneset al. Brazil 2013 Oton-Leiteet al. Brazil 2012 Gautamet al. India 2012 Gautamet al. India 2012 Gouveaet al. Brazil 2012 Gautamet al. India 2012 Carvalhoet al. Brazil 2011 Zanin et al. Brazil 2010 Simõeset al. Brazil 2009 Arora et al. India 2007
|
systematic review and meta-analysis
Brazil
2007 - 2018 |
head and neck cancer only and oral mucositis |
Studies included in qualitave synthesis (n =13)
Studies included in quantaive synthesis (meta-analysis) (n = 6, 570 pts)
experimental group: 283 pts control group: 287 pts |
systematic review: effectiveness of laser therapy in OM
cost-effectiveness of laser therapy, bas |
relative risk of developing mucositis ≥ grade 3: laser-treated group vs. placebo group: RR 0.36 (95% CI = 0, 29–0.44)
cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an incremental cost of R$ 3687.53 for the laser group, with an incremental effectiveness of 132.2.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 27.89, for the severe OM cases that were avoided. |
- |
1 no information about the reviewer for the included and excluded studies
"It was concluded, therefore, that photobiomodulation for OM in patients receiving head and neck cancer treatment was clinically effective and cost-effective." |