Cited by 11Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationOral health in cancer treatmentNeutropenia and Cancer Infections

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A non‐invasive oral rinse assay predicts bone marrow engraftment and 6 months prognosis following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Open access
Forster, Carol, Aboodi, Guy, Lipton, Jeff, Glogauer, Michael·2012·Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine

Abstract

J Oral Pathol Med (2012) 41: 165–170 Background: We have previously shown in a pediatric Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) population that a non‐invasive oral rinse can be used to monitor engraftment, neutrophil tissue delivery and susceptibility to infection post‐HSCT. Methods: Using the same oral rinse protocol, we studied neutrophil tissue delivery kinetics and its relationship to clinical parameters and outcomes following HSCT in 29 adult patients. Oral neutrophil counts were compared to circulating neutrophil levels, oral mucositis scores and patient health status at 6 months post‐HSCT. Results: Neutrophils were detected on average 8.4 ± 3.4 SD days earlier in the oral tissues than in the blood circulation, enabling us to confirm successful engraftment more than one week earlier than when using blood neutrophil counts alone. As well, in this population the time‐span between oral engraftment (OE) and blood engraftment (BE) was a consistent predictor of treatment outcome at 6 months following HSCT where a BE–OE of <6 days resulted in 100% of patients having a negative outcome. Conclusion: We conclude that monitoring the timing of neutrophil delivery to the oral tissues with a non‐invasive oral rinse has the potential to allow the physician to identify those patients who are at a high risk of HSCT failure within just a few weeks of the initiation of treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2011.01076.x

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neutrophil recovery from the oral cavity occurred more than one week earlier than that from the circulating blood, and the time span between blood and oral neutrophil engraftment was inversely related to improved outcomes (longer delays between oral and blood engraftment predicted better outcome at 6 months).

    “Neutrophil recovery from the oral cavity occurred more than one week earlier than that from the circulating blood and the time span between blood and oral neutrophil engraftment was inversely related to improved outcomes (i.e. longer delays between oral and blood engraftment predicted better outcome at 6 months) [34].”
  • Neutrophil delivery to oral tissues has been shown to predict success of HSCT at 6 months.

    “Neutrophil delivery to oral tissues has also been shown to predict success of HSCT at 6 months [34].”
  • The timing of neutrophil recovery to the oral cavity following HSCT has predictive value for future infections post-engraftment in a paediatric population and is predictive of prognosis in an adult HSCT population.

    “The timing of neutrophil recovery to the oral cavity following HSCT was recently found to have predictive value for future infections post-engraftment in a paediatric population [15] and be predictive of prognosis in an adult HSCT population [34].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Forster, C., Aboodi, G., Lipton, J., & Glogauer, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Glogauer, Michael
Venue
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09-20
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
165-170
ISSN
  • 0300-9777 (ISSN-L)
  • 0904-2512
  • 1600-0714
OpenAlex
W1492942437
Cited by
11
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Oral health in cancer treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Neutropenia and Cancer Infections
Keywords
mouthwash, bone marrow engraftment, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, oral mucositis, non-invasive biomarkers, transplant outcome prediction, post-transplant infection risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Bone Marrow, Cytodiagnosis, Follow-Up Studies, Graft Survival, Health Status, Humans, Leukemia, Leukocyte Count, Lymphoma, Mouth Mucosa, Mouthwashes, Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neutrophils, Prognosis, Remission Induction, Stomatitis, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review