ArticleBMJ open2021
Potential effect of antiseptic mouthwash on the incidence of
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Switching From Dual to Monotherapy for Gonorrhea is Associated With a Halving of Gonococcal Resistance to Azithromycin-A Modelling Study of MSM in Belgium.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Estimating Partnership Duration among MSM in Belgium-A Modeling Study.Infectious disease reports · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe incidence of
designWe developed a mathematical model of the transmission of gonorrhoea between each anatomical site (oropharynx, urethra and anorectum) in men who have sex with men (MSM). We constructed four scenarios: (1) mouthwash had no effect; (2) mouthwash increased the susceptibility of the oropharynx; (3) mouthwash reduced the transmissibility from the oropharynx; (4) the combined effect of mouthwash from scenarios 2 and 3.
settingWe used data at three anatomical sites from 4873 MSM attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre in 2018 and 2019 to calibrate our models and data from the USA, Netherlands and Thailand for sensitivity analyses.
participantsPublished available data on MSM with multisite infections of gonorrhoea. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of gonorrhoea.
resultsThe overall incidence of gonorrhoea was 44 (95% CI 37 to 50)/100 person-years (PY) in scenario 1. Under scenario 2 (20%-80% mouthwash coverage), the total incidence increased (47-60/100 PY) and at all three anatomical sites by between 7.4% (5.9%-60.8%) and 136.6% (108.1%-177.5%). Under scenario 3, with the same coverage, the total incidence decreased (20-39/100 PY) and at all anatomical sites by between 11.6% (10.2%-13.5%) and 99.8% (99.2%-100%). Under scenario 4, changes in the incidence depended on the efficacy of mouthwash on the susceptibility or transmissibility. The effect on the total incidence varied (22-55/100 PY), and at all anatomical sites, there were increases of nearly 130% and large declines of almost 100%.
conclusionsThe effect of mouthwash on gonorrhoea incidence is largely predictable depending on whether it increases susceptibility to or reduces the transmissibility of gonorrhoea.
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.