Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22323845›Full record

ReviewActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2011

Potential applications of human saliva as diagnostic fluid.

M Castagnola, P M Picciotti, I Messana, C Fanali, A Fiorita, T Cabras, L Calò, E Pisano, G C Passali, F Iavarone and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2011. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

M CastagnolaIstituto di Biochimica e Biochimica Clinica, Università Cattolica, Rome, Italy.
P M Picciotti
I Messana
C Fanali
A Fiorita
T Cabras
L Calò
E Pisano
G C Passali
F Iavarone
G Paludetti
E Scarano

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of human saliva as a diagnostic and prognostic fluid has until recently been somewhat disregarded. Although sample collection is non-invasive, physiological and genetic variations were largely responsible for its infrequent application in the past. Recently, several proteomic studies contributed to partial elucidation of the salivary proteome (more than 2400 protein components have been characterized), both in terms of composition, contributions to whole saliva and genetic/physiological variability. On this basis, is not too optimistic to believe that in the near future human saliva could become a relevant diagnostic fluid. In this review, the characterization by proteomic approaches of new salivary markers in oncology, head and neck carcinoma (oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, and salivary glands), breast and gastric cancers, salivary gland function and disease, Sjögren syndrome, systemic sclerosis, dental and gingival pathology, systemic, psychiatric and neurological diseases, is described.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineSalivaHumansMouth DiseasesNeoplasmsSalivary Proteins and PeptidesSalivary Proteins and PeptidesDental pathologyOncologyOral cavityPeptidesProteinsProteomicsSalivaSalivary glandsSystemic diseasesTherapy

Identifiers

PMID22323845
PMCPMC3272865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.