Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of gold nanoparticles in prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in animal models: a systematic review

Minati Choudhury, Paul A. Brunton, Donald Schwass, D. Pletzer, J. Ratnayake, George Dias, Geoffrey Tompkins

Systematic Reviews, 2024

8 citations

Abstract

Background Oral mucositis remains a significant complication during cancer therapy with no effective treatment. Gold nanoparticles offer anti-inflammatory, antioxidant properties with low toxicity. This study systematically reviews the literature assessing gold nanoparticles in the management of oral mucositis in animal models. Methods A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, using the format for Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation. Prior to the review, the protocol was registered in the systematic review register, PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42021272169). Outcome measures included ulceration, histopathological scores, inflammatory mediators, microbial growth, and pain. Study quality was analysed by SYRCLE risk-of-bias tool. Results Only one study met the inclusion criteria, documenting reduction in ulceration, inflammatory, and oxidative biomarkers. Exposure to AuNPs prevented inflammatory response induced by 5-fluorouracil in oral mucosa of hamsters. However, a high risk of bias necessitates further research. Conclusion This review identifies a potential therapeutic strategy for prevention and management of oral mucositis. It also provides future direction for gold nanoparticle research in oral mucositis; however, there is lack of sufficient evidence to derive any conclusion. Research with standardized parameters including nanoparticle size, capping agent, surface charge, and appropriate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free