Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35127785›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2021

Role of Probiotics in Halitosis of Oral Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Studies.

Nansi López-Valverde, Antonio López-Valverde, Bruno Macedo de Sousa, Cinthia Rodríguez, Ana Suárez, Juan Manuel Aragoneses

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effects of systemicJournal of dental sciences · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nansi López-ValverdeDepartment of Surgery, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Antonio López-ValverdeDepartment of Surgery, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Bruno Macedo de SousaInstitute for Occlusion and Orofacial Pain Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Cinthia RodríguezDepartment of Dentistry, Universidad Federico Henríquez y Carvajal, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Ana SuárezDepartment of Preclinical Dentistry, School of Biomedical Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Juan Manuel AragonesesFaculty of Dentistry, Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio, Madrid, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca · ESUniversidad Alfonso X el Sabio · ESUniversidad Europea de Madrid · ESUniversidad Federico Henríquez y Carvajal · DOUniversity of Coimbra · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Halitosis or oral malodor is a condition caused by the putrefaction of sulfur-containing amino acids. It affects 30-50% of the population and causes social rejection, reducing quality of life, and self-esteem. Probiotics, especially Lactobacillus species, have been proposed for the treatment of genuine halitosis, due to their ability to reduce bacterial colonization. Our objective was to evaluate their use for the treatment of oral halitosis. Applying the PRISMA statement guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for scientific articles from the last 15 years, up to July 2021. The keywords used were "Probiotics"; "Halitosis"; "Mouth diseases"; "Oral health"; "Humans"; "Randomized Clinical Trials" according to the question, "Are probiotics effective for the reduction or elimination of oral halitosis?" Fourteen studies were identified, although only four met the inclusion criteria. We evaluated 283 participants treated with two different probiotics, with a follow-up of at least 2 weeks. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. No statistical significance was found (

Indexed as

bad breathhalitosisoral healthoral malodorprobioticsrandomized clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID35127785
PMCPMC8813778
OpenAlexW4206072933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.