Showing papers by "Jan E Clarkson published in 2002"

Prevention of oral mucositis and oral candidiasis for patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy: cochrane systematic review

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to determine whether oral prophylactic agents are superior to placebo or no treatment on the incidence of oral mucositis and oral candidiasis for patients with cancer. A Cochrane systematic review was conducted of randomized trials of oral (and topical) prophylactic agents for mucositis and oral candidiasis, anywhere in the world, among patients with cancer (excluding head and neck) who were receiving chemotherapy. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis for mucositis. Of the six prophylactic agents used for mucositis, only one--ice chips--was effective (relative risk 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77). Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis for oral candidiasis. There is evidence that antifungal agents that are partially or fully absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract prevent oral candidiasis and that the partially absorbed agents may be more effective than the fully absorbed agents. The RR for partially absorbed agents was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.27). In conclusion, there is weak and unreliable evidence that ice chips prevent mucositis. There is evidence that prophylactic use of antifungal agents, which are absorbed or partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, reduce the clinical signs of oral candidiasis.

What Scottish primary care researchers are doing to recover their standing in the UK.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To compare the outputs of Scottish PC research with the rest of the UK. DESIGN Bibliometric analysis of the research level and potential impact of research publications. Papers are categorised by level (RL) from basic research to clinical observation and potential impact category (PIC), a 5 year impact factor on a numerical scale. SETTING Interrogation of the Wellcome Trust's Research Outputs Database 1988-97. SUBJECTS 17,303 papers, 2,280 arising from Scottish primary care. RESULTS Scottish primary care publications totalled 14% of the published research in the UK during 1988, by 1997 it had fallen to 10%. PC researchers in the rest of the UK produced a 60% increase (1169 to 1866 per annum) in publications compared to our 25% increase (201 to 251 per annum) over the same period. Scottish papers were less likely to be presenting basic science. The mean potential impact was slightly lower than the rest of the UK (1.89 compared to 1.94, s.e.m.0.02). CONCLUSION Scottish PC research outputs grew more slowly than the rest of the UK during 1988-97. The research interests and journals selected by the research community contributed to this pattern. The climate, infrastructure and skills required for more effective PC research during this period were also significant factors. The Scottish School of Primary Care provides a mechanism for everyone in NHSScotland and Higher Education Institutions to address the underlying issues identified in this analysis. As a 'baseline' analysis, this report will allow progress to be monitored as the SSPC becomes increasingly effective.