Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37117367›Full record

Trial reportBritish dental journal2023

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial.

Jaspreet Kaur Farmaha, Jeffrey N James, Kyle Frazier, Nikhil Shri Sahajpal, Ashis K Mondal, Doan Tam Bloomquist, Ravindra Kolhe, Stephen W Looney, Ryan Bloomquist

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jaspreet Kaur FarmahaDepartment of Clinical Research, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Jeffrey N JamesDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Kyle FrazierDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Nikhil Shri SahajpalDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Ashis K MondalDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Doan Tam BloomquistDepartment of Ophthalmology, Charlie Norwood Veterans Affairs Medical Centre, Augusta, Georgia, USA.
Ravindra KolheDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA.
Stephen W LooneyDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, USA.
Ryan BloomquistDepartment of Restorative Sciences, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Georgia, USA. rbloomquist@augusta.edu.
Augusta University · USCharlie Norwood VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the short-term efficacy of four commercial mouthwashes versus water in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity over clinically relevant time points.Methods In total, 32 subjects that were proven SARS-CoV-2-positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test were recruited and randomised into five parallel arms. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared in saliva samples between the groups, as well as within the groups at baseline (pre-rinse), zero hours, one hour and two hours post-rinse, using SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR analysis.Results We observed a significant increase in Ct values in saliva samples collected immediately after rinsing with all the four mouthwashes - 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 1% povidone iodine, or Listerine - compared to water. A sustained increase in Ct values for up to two hours was only observed in the Listerine and chlorohexidine gluconate groups. We were not able to sufficiently power this clinical trial, so the results remain notional but encouraging and supportive of findings in other emerging mouthwash studies on COVID-19, warranting additional investigations.Conclusions Our evidence suggests that in a clinical setting, prophylactic rinses with Listerine or chlorhexidine gluconate can potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity for up to two hours. While limited in statistical power due to the difficulty in obtaining this data, we advocate for pre-procedural mouthwashing, like handwashing, as an economical and safe additional precaution to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a potentially infected patient to providers.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2ChlorhexidineHumansMouthwashesViral LoadChlorhexidinechlorhexidine gluconateMouthwashes

Identifiers

PMID37117367
PMCPMC10141803
OpenAlexW4367319053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.