ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Accuracy of a portable breath meter test for the detection of halitosis in children and adolescents.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on Halitosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Halitosis and Its Association with Sleep Quality and Psychological Factors Among University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Halitosis and Mouth Breathing Among Pediatric Population: Exploring the Contributing Factors.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors of Halitosis Among University Students in Guangxi, Southern China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2025Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine the accuracy of the Breath-Alert™ portable breath meter (BA) for the detection of halitosis in children and adolescents, considering the organoleptic test (OT) as the gold standard in this assessment.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 150 children (aged 6-12 years). OT was performed by three independent examiners on a single occasion, obtaining three scores of 0-5 points on the Rosenberg's organoleptic scale. The median of the three evaluations for each child was used for analysis. BA was used according to the manufacturer's instructions, with breath odor scored from 0-5 points. Scores ≥2 on both tests were considered indicative of halitosis.
resultsA total of 26 (17.3%) and 23 (15.3%) children were detected with halitosis on the OT and BA tests, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the BA scores for the detection of halitosis were 80.76% and 98.38%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for BA were 91.3% and 96.06%, respectively.
conclusionIn the present study involving children, who require fast, practical examinations, BA proved to be an auxiliary tool to OT for the detection of halitosis in the practice of pediatric dentistry, demonstrating high sensitivity and specificity.
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.