Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-titration study of oral pilocarpine for treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients.

LeVeque, F G, Montgomery, M, Potter, D, Zimmer, M B, Rieke, J W, Steiger, B W, Gallagher, S C, Muscoplat, C C·1993·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of pilocarpine hydrochloride for symptomatic relief of postradiation xerostomia symptoms and for saliva production in patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-two head and neck cancer patients who had received at least 40 Gy of radiation (117 patients had received > 60 Gy) with clinically significant xerostomia were enrolled onto a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center clinical investigation. Patients received 2.5-mg tablets for the first 4 weeks, 5.0-mg tablets for the second 4 weeks, and 10.0-mg tablets for the last 4 weeks of the 12-week study. Patients were allowed to titrate pilocarpine or placebo for improvement in symptoms or to reduce side effects. Patients were evaluated for symptomatic relief by questionnaires and visual analog scales (VAS), and for saliva production by sialometry. RESULTS: Pilocarpine produced a significant improvement (P = .035) in overall global assessments compared with placebo. There was a statistically significant (P = .020) decreased use of oral comfort agents such as artificial saliva, hard candy, and water. Values for symptomatic improvement in dryness approached significance (P = .057). There were statistically significant postdose improvements in whole and parotid salivary flow in pilocarpine treatment groups versus placebo. All pilocarpine dosages tested were judged to be safe. Adverse experiences were primarily sweating, rhinitis, headache, nausea, and urinary frequency, with the most common side effect being mild to moderate sweating. There were no serious drug-related adverse experiences in any of the pilocarpine treatment groups. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that pilocarpine produces clinically significant benefits for the symptomatic treatment of postradiation xerostomia. Best results were obtained with continuous treatment for 8 to 12 weeks with doses greater than 2.5 mg three times per day.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1993.11.6.1124

Cites

6 of 6 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

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
LeVeque, F. G., Montgomery, M., Potter, D., Zimmer, M. B., Rieke, J. W., Steiger, B. W., Gallagher, S. C., & Muscoplat, C. C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1993-06
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
1124-1131
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1846716296
Cited by
290
References
6
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-titration study of oral pilocarpine for treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1993.11.6.1124
The paper
LeVeque, F. G., Montgomery, M., Potter, D., Zimmer, M. B., Rieke, J. W., Steiger, B. W., Gallagher, S. C., & Muscoplat, C. C. (1993). A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-titration study of oral pilocarpine for treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1993.11.6.1124

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.