SynthesisMolecular diagnosis & therapy2022
Salivary Biomarkers as Indicators of TBI Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological Markers of Cognitive Impairments in Combat and Contact-Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A handheld near infrared scanner for the detection of acute traumatic intracranial hemorrhage.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biomarkers of traumatic brain injury: narrative review and future prospects in neurointensive care.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical Theragnostic Signature of Extracellular Vesicles in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).ACS chemical neuroscience · 2023Review
- Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research.The Lancet. Neurology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveTraumatic brain injuries are physical injuries to the head that result in disruptions to normal brain function. Diagnostic tools such as computed tomography scans have commonly been used to detect traumatic brain injuries but are costly and not ubiquitously available. Recent research on diagnostic alternatives has focused on using salivary biomarkers, but there is no consensus on the utility of these methods. The objective of this manuscript is to address the gap in the literature pertaining to the effectiveness of salivary biomarkers for TBI diagnosis and prognosis.
methodsA systematic review was conducted between November 2020 and October 2021 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases were searched using the terms "traumatic brain injury," "TBI," "saliva," and "biomarkers." Literature published prior to 2010 was excluded, and two authors reviewed each full-text article to ensure its relevance.
resultsA total of 18 articles were included in this review, with nine articles on salivary microRNA, three on salivary hormones, three on salivary extracellular vesicles, and three on salivary proteins.
conclusionsStudies reported changes in salivary biomarkers after traumatic brain injuries and indicated a possible link between salivary biomarker expression and traumatic brain injury severity. However, it is unclear the degree to which salivary biomarkers accurately predict traumatic brain injury diagnosis and prognosis; some studies reported significant associations while others reported weaker associations. More research into the robustness of salivary biomarkers is needed to fully elucidate their utility for the traumatic brain injury population.
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.