ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2016
Parasympathomimetic drugs for dry mouth due to radiotherapy.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02982577 (Effect of Pilocarpine in Patients With Xerostomia), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Effect of Pilocarpine in Patients With Xerostomia
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Localized Delivery of Pilocarpine to Hypofunctional Salivary Glands through Electrospun Nanofiber Mats: An Ex Vivo and In Vivo Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases. Reference lists of identified articles were checked and experts in the field and relevant pharmaceutical companies were contacted.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials, including parallel and crossover, carried out in any setting on any patient population with radiation-induced salivary dysfunction using parasympathomimetics drugs.Data extraction and synthesisThe two authors independently assessed for inclusion, established the risk of bias and abstracted data. The primary outcome was level of xerostomia. The authors intended to report risk ratio, odds ratio, risk difference and NNT for dichotomous data and mean difference and standard mean difference for continuous data.ResultsOf the three included studies, one (n=20) reported mean improvement on the VAS (22.5 mm on a 100 mm scale). The other two studies considered a change in 25 mm on the VAS a positive response. Of those one (n=207) reported positive response in 51% of subjects on 5mg of pilocapine TID and 47% for 10mg TID. The second (n= 162) reported a 42% positive response with a titrated dose regimen. The side effects rate was high,and the main reason for discontinuation.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to support the use of pilocarpine hydrochloride in the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia. Currently, there is little evidence to support the use of other parasympathomimetic drugs in the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia. Available studies suggest that approximately half of patients will respond, but side effects can be problematic. The conclusions of the update are the same as the conclusions of the original review, since no new relevant studies have been published in the interim.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.