Mouthwash use and oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of mouthwash use on the development of oral cancer. METHODS: Observational studies with adult/older adult populations that have examined the association between mouthwash use and oral cancer were included. Electronic search was performed in July 2022, with no time or language restrictions. PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases were used, and the search was extended to theses and dissertations libraries, Google Scholar, reference lists, and other sources. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and quantitative data synthesis was performed by random effects meta-analysis, with different subgroup analyses and meta-regression. This revision was registered in Prospero (CRD42020143307). RESULTS: Of the 4,094 studies identified in the search, 15 case-control studies were included in the review, totaling 6,515 cases and 17,037 controls. The meta-analysis included 17 measures of effect from 15 case-control studies. The pooled OR was 1.00 (95%CI: 0.79–1.26, n = 17 studies), but it was 2.58 (95%CI: 1.38–4.82, n = 2 studies) among those who had used mouthwashes three times or more times a day, and 1.30 (95%CI: 1.10–1.54, n = 4 studies) among those who had used mouthwashes for more than 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: We f ound e vidence t hat a h igh f requency o f m outhwash u se m ay b e associated with an increased risk of oral cancer. However, despite the biological plausibility for this association, we suggest caution upon interpretation of our findings due to the few number of studies that have investigated the mouthwash use frequency, which should be considered. Therefore, we recommend that future studies assess, in detail, the frequency, duration, and content of mouthwashes to increase the strength of evidence for a possible dose-response effect of mouthwashes on oral cancer risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".