Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37950136›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2024

Saliva Collection Methods Among Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review.

Juliette M H Fey, Floris J Bikker, Daniela Hesse

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Dentistry journal · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Juliette M H FeyDepartment of Paediadtric Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Floris J BikkerDepartment of Oral Biochemistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9453-4630
Daniela HesseDepartment of Paediadtric Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.hesse@acta.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0912-4152
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Health~Holland R/011124.03.02.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSaliva can be used for screening and diagnostic purposes. Although multiple saliva collection methods are available, their use in children can be limited due to lack of cooperation, developmental stage, and age. The aim of this scoping review was to comprehensively appraise the different methods of saliva collection among both children and adolescents by assessing the available scientific literature.

methodsA literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies on saliva collection methods among children and adolescents were included for this review.

resultsThe literature search identified 249 eligible articles, of which 205 had a cross-sectional study design. Four distinct saliva collection methods have surfaced: the drooling method, the absorption method, the spitting method, and the suction method. Among infants or children under the age of 6 years, the suction and absorption methods were most preferred. The drooling and spitting methods were only applicable among children above the age of 3 years. When children were not willing to cooperate, the absorption method was most feasible. In adolescents and older children, no specific method was found to be preferred over another method.

conclusionOverall, saliva collection is well tolerated by children and adolescents, with the absorption and suction methods being preferred with young and uncooperative children.

Indexed as

SalivaSialorrheaAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInfant

Identifiers

PMID37950136
PMCPMC10786738
OpenAlexW4388562162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.