LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY MAY REDUCE THE RISK OF SEVERE ORAL MUCOSITIS IN PATIENTS RECEIVING CHEMOTHERAPY OR RADIOTHERAPY.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Peng et al. Low-level laser therapy in the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020 Oct;130(4):387-397.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.05.014. Epub 2020 Jun 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Sichuan University Post-doctoral Research and Development Fund (grant No. 19 XJ0008) TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Valuing the Clinical Effectiveness of Therapeutics.

OBJECTIVE: This second article of a series of four is aimed to inform dental practitioners about the relevance to provide more formal analysis of economic resources when helping patients make clinical decisions. METHODS: The following methods of health economic evaluation are described: Cost-effectiveness-analysis (CEA), cost-utility-analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit-analysis (CBA). CEA compares the effectiveness of different interventions usually based on specific clinical outcome measures, for example pocket depth reduction. CUA evaluates the effectiveness of therapies by taking into account more generic health outcome measures such as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) is based on measuring patients' actual willingness to pay. Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) is based on measuring patients' actual willingness to pay, and it offers a method of economic evaluation that values all benefits against all costs. In other words, the total costs of a specific intervention are subtracted from the value of benefits related to that intervention. RESULTS: This article reported common methods of health economic evaluation that could be taken into account throughout clinical decision-making. Decision makers (patients, practitioners, health policy) should be adequately informed about costs and health outcomes associated with the various therapeutic alternatives in order to act responsibly within scenarios of resource scarcity. Economic evaluations can be informative with respect to whether or not the health outcomes outweigh the costs of an intervention, and hence provide a decision-making tool for decision makers considering treatment alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: The information provided here may help decision makers (patients, practitioners, health policy) to understand economic considerations as an essential component of the decision-making process. Carefulness is advised with regard to interpreting the results from economic evaluation studies.