Randomized controlled trial lowers oral mucositis severity in pediatric patients, suggesting the need for tailored care protocols.
Purpose Although survival rates in childhood cancer have improved with more effective, risk-adapted multimodal treatments, oral mucositis remains one of the most common treatment-related oral complications. This study evaluated the impact of an oral mucositis care protocol on the severity of mucositis. Methods This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted with 30 pediatric oncology patients aged 6 to 18 years. The sample included children with hematologic malignancies (predominantly acute lymphoblastic leukemia) and solid tumors. The data were collected using a descriptive information form, the Children’s International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES), and the WHO Oral Mucositis Grading Scale. Standard care was applied to the control group. For the intervention group, an oral care protocol was prepared, and the patients received training. The oral care intervention was applied for 14 days and monitored by the researcher. The patients were monitored for oral mucositis on Days 0, 3, 7, and 14. Those in the intervention group received a calendar for documenting their oral care practices. Results The ChIMES scores showed a significant difference between the groups and were lower in the intervention group ( z = 0.010; p = 0.011). The WHO scale results revealed significant differences between the groups on Day 7 ( Z = −3.106; p = 0.002) and Day 14 ( Z = −2.841; p = 0.005). Conclusion At the end of the study, the severity of mucositis was lower in the patients who received the oral mucositis care protocol. It is recommended that a standardized oral care protocol specific to children be developed and that education on oral mucositis care be provided to children and their parents from the beginning of hospitalization. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT06711315; Registration date: 29 November 2024).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erçelik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: