Talk:Mucositis

message: In 2014, while I was hospitalized for cancer, my mucositis was treated with a pink liquid - swish and swallow every 4 hours - called Magic Mouthwash. It's an older supportive treatment for which doctors can have varying recipes. It had to be specially compounded to each doctor's order. The version I took included a liquid antacid, Benadryl, xylocaine, and I think an antibiotic. It had an awful taste, so I avoided it when I got home.
* This article discusses it under "Treat the discomfort/pain.", but doesn't give it a name - http://chemocare.com/chemotherapy/side-effects/mouth-sores-due-to-chemotherapy.aspx
* This MD discusses Magic Mouthwash, and its non-standardization, in answer to a client's query - http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/chemotherapy/expert-answers/magic-mouthwash/FAQ-20058071
* This Merck Manual article discussed Magic Mouthwash down under "Topical Measures" - http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/dental-disorders/symptoms-of-dental-and-oral-disorders/stomatitis
There may be newer ways to deal with this painful and unsettling side-effect, but MM seems to still enjoy some popularity amongst oncologists. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Magic Mouthwash" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mucositis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031112456/https://www.astro.org/News-and-Media/News-Releases/2012/Doxepin-rinse-significantly-reduces-mouth-pain-for-head-and-neck-cancer-patients-who-receive-radiation-therapy.aspx to https://www.astro.org/News-and-Media/News-Releases/2012/Doxepin-rinse-significantly-reduces-mouth-pain-for-head-and-neck-cancer-patients-who-receive-radiation-therapy.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: ====BMJ: LLLT in children====
The guidelines put forth by the Mucositis Prevention Guideline Development Group suggest low level light therapy (LLLT) which is anti-inflammatory, influencing wound healing while acting as an analgesic. This recommendation came with a caveat — LLLT was given a weak recommendation by the Group due to the treatment requiring "specialized equipment and expertise", and because it was unknown whether it would be "feasible to deliver this therapy modality in routine clinical practice, particularly in a pediatric population." The Group's conclusion was that the ideal treatment parameters and cost-effectiveness of LLLT were unknown, adding that "methodological concerns and potential publication bias may mean that the treatment effects observed in these trials are exaggerated." These concerns are not apparent in the wording of the COI edit request. If the recommendations reached by the Group are to be included in the Wikipedia article, then I believe that the full WP:WEIGHT of their conclusion — including the language describing the suggestion as a "weak recommendation" — ought to be included here as well.
====NICE: LLLT in adults====
The NICE evidence included 11 reviews: 3 systematic reviews and meta-analysis and 7 randomized controlled trials (1 of which also reported outcomes from a prospective case series) and 1 non-randomised comparative study. The NICE review also repeats the recommendations reached by the other two reports.
====MASCC: Laser and other light therapy==== 
This systematic review of 24 trials (this paper was not a meta-analysis on effect of outcomes) was specific to recommending LLLT only for "oral mucositis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant, with or without total body irradiation" and was done in 2012. 
=====Conclusion=====
All three of the papers suggest that LLLT is workable for a narrowly defined patient population, most of those results coming from adults, while the 1st reference offers a lukewarm recommend for children. I've asked for a 2nd opinion for this review to be sure.
 spintendo  11:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The recommendations given in two of these sources do not entirely align. The proposed sentence states:In 2013 MASCC published a guideline supporting () the use of LLLT for the prevention of oral mucositis, followed by a guideline published by the BMJ supporting () the treatment for children undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In 2018 NICE published a guideline for both the prevention and treatment of mucositis using LLLT. I believe that since the therapy is recommended for adults in one of the publications but given a weak recommendation in the other, that this might need to be reflected in the proposal. It is important to ask whether this difference in terms is really important or not, and to question whether the inclusion of this qualification might be inappropriately introducing doubt about the therapy into the Wikipedia article. These are questions which require further discussion.  spintendo  01:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the time taken to review my request. If I am reading this correctly, your concern is that the word "supporting" did not fully communicate the weights of the recommendations in the papers submitted? So it would be better if the proposal was something like "published a recommendation for the use…" and "published a guideline with a weak recommendation for the use…" (or something similar)? Do you also think it is appropriate to include the reasons for the weak recommendation? To amend my proposal, do I have to submit another edit request or are we able to amend this proposal? Appreciate your help. Academia salad (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be able to give me feedback on my proposed amendments to my edit request, the comment directly above this one? Also, do I need to make an entirely new edit request or are you able to submit an ammended edit request through our discussion? Academia salad (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 04-JUN-2018

message: This systematic review of 24 trials (this paper was not a meta-analysis on effect of outcomes) was specific to recommending LLLT only for "oral mucositis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant, with or without total body irradiation" and was done in 2012. 
=====Conclusion=====
All three of the papers suggest that LLLT is workable for a narrowly defined patient population, most of those results coming from adults, while the 1st reference offers a lukewarm recommend for children. I've asked for a 2nd opinion for this review to be sure.
 spintendo  11:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The recommendations given in two of these sources do not entirely align. The proposed sentence states:In 2013 MASCC published a guideline supporting () the use of LLLT for the prevention of oral mucositis, followed by a guideline published by the BMJ supporting () the treatment for children undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In 2018 NICE published a guideline for both the prevention and treatment of mucositis using LLLT. I believe that since the therapy is recommended for adults in one of the publications but given a weak recommendation in the other, that this might need to be reflected in the proposal. It is important to ask whether this difference in terms is really important or not, and to question whether the inclusion of this qualification might be inappropriately introducing doubt about the therapy into the Wikipedia article. These are questions which require further discussion.  spintendo  01:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the time taken to review my request. If I am reading this correctly, your concern is that the word "supporting" did not fully communicate the weights of the recommendations in the papers submitted? So it would be better if the proposal was something like "published a recommendation for the use…" and "published a guideline with a weak recommendation for the use…" (or something similar)? Do you also think it is appropriate to include the reasons for the weak recommendation? To amend my proposal, do I have to submit another edit request or are we able to amend this proposal? Appreciate your help. Academia salad (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be able to give me feedback on my proposed amendments to my edit request, the comment directly above this one? Also, do I need to make an entirely new edit request or are you able to submit an ammended edit request through our discussion? Academia salad (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: MASCC: Laser and other light therapy

message: All three of the papers suggest that LLLT is workable for a narrowly defined patient population, most of those results coming from adults, while the 1st reference offers a lukewarm recommend for children. I've asked for a 2nd opinion for this review to be sure.
 spintendo  11:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The recommendations given in two of these sources do not entirely align. The proposed sentence states:In 2013 MASCC published a guideline supporting () the use of LLLT for the prevention of oral mucositis, followed by a guideline published by the BMJ supporting () the treatment for children undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In 2018 NICE published a guideline for both the prevention and treatment of mucositis using LLLT. I believe that since the therapy is recommended for adults in one of the publications but given a weak recommendation in the other, that this might need to be reflected in the proposal. It is important to ask whether this difference in terms is really important or not, and to question whether the inclusion of this qualification might be inappropriately introducing doubt about the therapy into the Wikipedia article. These are questions which require further discussion.  spintendo  01:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the time taken to review my request. If I am reading this correctly, your concern is that the word "supporting" did not fully communicate the weights of the recommendations in the papers submitted? So it would be better if the proposal was something like "published a recommendation for the use…" and "published a guideline with a weak recommendation for the use…" (or something similar)? Do you also think it is appropriate to include the reasons for the weak recommendation? To amend my proposal, do I have to submit another edit request or are we able to amend this proposal? Appreciate your help. Academia salad (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be able to give me feedback on my proposed amendments to my edit request, the comment directly above this one? Also, do I need to make an entirely new edit request or are you able to submit an ammended edit request through our discussion? Academia salad (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion