SynthesisClinical oral investigations2020
Proteomic profile of saliva collected directly from ducts: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteomic profile of saliva collected directly from ducts: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Pooled it
- Advances in Biomarkers and Diagnostics in Periodontitis and Oral Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Management of Sjögren's Syndrome: Present Issues and Future Perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo present a systematic review that provides updated information about proteins found in salivary fluid extracted strictly from ducts.
methodsThe systematic review probing strategy was based on electronic databases word search (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, and Scopus). Risk of bias was assessed based on Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data.
resultsAfter 2 rounds of scrutiny, 12 articles were included, totaling 231 individuals (125 were healthy, 41 were elder individuals with radicular caries, 56 had primary Sjögren's syndrome, and 9 were patients who had received radiotherapy for head and neck cancer). The selected studies had no similarities among proteins found, demonstrating the need of standard reference in experimental methodology to obtain a thorough coverage of proteins.
conclusionFurther studies are required to better determine the relative amount of proteins described in this study. It is essential to increase the number of samples, to perform similar collection techniques, to include other analyses methods such as mass spectrometry, and to perform the validation of some proteins using immunoassay techniques such as Elisa and Western blot. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proteomic profile of saliva collected from ducts is essential to better understand the disease process, enabling the identification of biomarkers for specific clinical situations.
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.