SynthesisClinical oral investigations2024
A systematic review of the perspectives of botulinum toxin use on the quality of life of neurological patients with drooling.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of IncobotulinumtoxinA for Treatment of Sialorrhea: A Multicenter, Phase 3 Study in Japan.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Trial
- Mind the gap: a German case study on the discrepancy between geographic accessibility and real-world utilization of botulinum toxin therapy.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of botulinum toxin in the salivary glands of patients with neurological impairment and drooling and its impact on the quality of life. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42,023,435,242) and conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. An electronic search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial databases until August 2023, no language restriction. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of patients diagnosed with drooling and neurological impairment who used botulinum toxin on the salivary gland were included, which evaluated subjective quality of life parameters. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist and Risk of Bias 2 tools. The certainty of the evidence was analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
resultsEight studies involving 317 patients were included. All studies, through subjective parameters, suggested the effectiveness of botulinum toxin in reducing drooling, resulting in an improvement in the quality of life. Three studies demonstrated improvements in swallowing and four in cases of respiratory diseases. Two clinical trials had a high risk of bias, whereas one had low risk. The five cohort studies that were evaluated had a high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was considered low.
conclusionsBased on the patient/caregivers' perception of improvement in drooling, dysphagia, and respiratory symptoms, it can be inferred that botulinum toxin application reduces subjective drooling in neurologically compromised patients. Its impact contributes to the general well-being and quality of life. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Injection of botulinum toxin into the salivary glands can be considered an alternative technique to surgical or medicinal approaches in reducing drooling. It is effective, less invasive and without significant side effects. It promotes a positive impact on the well-being and quality of life of neurological patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38758415What 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.