ArticleDentistry journal2020
Reliability of Screening Methods to Diagnose Oral Dryness and Evaluate Saliva Secretion.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time-Dependent Changes in Salivary Antioxidants After 5-ALA Photodynamic Therapy vs. Clobetasol in Oral Lichen Planus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Trial
- Article
- Salivary CD5L as a Potential Non-Invasive Biomarker for Pathological Staging and Prognostic Assessment in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Repeated Unstimulated Whole Saliva Collection: A Reliable Approach to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Salivary Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Markers in Oral Leukoplakia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Saliva as a Diagnostic Tool for Systemic Diseases-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Comparative Mucosal Wetting Capacity of Novel and Commercial Saliva Substitute Formulations: An in vitro Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2025Article
- Associations of oral health status and swallowing function with cognitive impairment in the aging population: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Salivary Scintigraphic Evaluation of Salivary Gland Function.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the reliability and reproducibility of widely implemented salivary flow rate and oral dryness tests. In experiment 1, twenty young and healthy Japanese participants volunteered to participate. For each participant, the oral moisture (OM) level, unstimulated whole saliva volume (U-WSV), and stimulated whole saliva volume (S-WSV) were measured at the same time on two separate days. In experiment 2, twenty-seven patients who were over 65 years of age volunteered to participate. The OM level and U-WSV were measured at the same time on two separate days. In Experiment 1, the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) corresponding to the S-WSV, U-WSV, and OM level were 0.23, 0.28, and 0.16, respectively, for the young participants. In Experiment 2, the ICCs corresponding to the U-WSV/spitting and OM level were 0.83 and 0.12, respectively, for the older participants. The results of Bland-Altman analysis confirmed the absence of systematic error, with the exception of the OM level results in Experiment 2, which indicated systematic bias. In conclusion, we believe that there is currently no consistent and reliable screening test for assessing salivary flow rate and oral dryness, although the spitting test was determined to be highly reliable.
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.