Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1478004›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics1992

Therapeutic drug monitoring in saliva. An update.

R K Drobitch, C K Svensson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Salivary biglycan-neo-epitope-BGNOsteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Salivary and serum irisin in healthy adults before and after exercise.European journal of translational myology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R K DrobitchDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
C K Svensson
Wayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article re-examines the issue of salivary therapeutic drug monitoring (STDM). The anatomy and physiology of saliva and the salivary glands, as well as the effects of disease and drugs on salivary secretion and composition, are discussed briefly. Drugs for which therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been shown useful are individually considered to determine if salivary drug concentrations (Csal) are reflective of plasma free drug concentrations (C(up)). That is, is the Csal/C(up) ratio time- and concentration-independent, as supported by a review of literature data? The primary determinant which appears to govern the potential utility of STDM for many of the drugs is the pKa of the drug. Drugs which are not ionisable or are un-ionised within the salivary pH range (phenytoin, carbamazepine, theophylline) are candidates for STDM based on current literature data. Digoxin and cyclosporin are potential candidates for STDM; however, further studies are necessary to confirm these preliminary findings. On the basis of current literature data, STDM does not appear to be useful for other drugs therapeutically monitored in serum/plasma.

Indexed as

Anti-Arrhythmia AgentsAnticonvulsantsAntidepressive AgentsDrug MonitoringHumansReference ValuesSalivaSalivary GlandsAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsAnticonvulsantsAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID1478004
OpenAlexW3266514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.