SynthesisClinical oral investigations2024
The reliability of using gingival crevicular blood to measure blood glucose and hba1c levels in the dental setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal Relationship Between Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Cataract: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Study.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- A Roadmap for the Rational Use of Biomarkers in Oral Disease Screening.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere are 500 million patients living with diabetes mellitus worldwide and 50% of them remain undiagnosed. Routine periodontal probing provides gingival crevicular blood in patients with gingivitis. Gingival blood may be useful for diabetes screening without the need for any expensive, painful or time-consuming method by using convenient glucometers. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to answer the question to "is there a difference in glucose or HbA1c levels (O) in patients with positive gingival bleeding (P) measured on gingival crevicular blood (GCB) (I) compared to finger prick capillary blood (CB) (C). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe authors performed an electronic search of six databases using identical MeSH phrases. Only human clinical studies without limitations on the year of publication were considered. Data extraction was done by using standardized data collection sheets. Risk of bias assessment were conducted using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. Meta-analyses were carried out with the random effects model to aggregate the correlation coefficients and the difference between the means between gingival and capillary blood reading, using 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe database and manual search yielded 268 articles, from which the selection procedure provided 36 articles for full-text screening, and the final pool of eligible articles composed of 23 studies with 1680 patients. Meta-analysis results on glycemic levels showed differences between the GCB and CB procedures in patients with and without diabetes with values of -6.80 [-17.35; 3.76] and - 4.36 [-9.89; 1.18], respectively. Statistically significant correlations were found (p = 0.001) between GCB and CB measurements in patients with (0.97 [0.927; 0.987]) and without diabetes (0.927 [0.873; 0.958]).
conclusionGingival blood could prove to be useful to identify patients with undiagnosed diabetes when the necessary amount of uncontaminated blood is present. However, this technique is limited by the possibility of contamination, prandial status and inaccuracies, so it is unsuited to address the patient's glycemic control accurately.
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.