ReviewClinical kidney journal2024
Comparative efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on xerostomia and salivary flow rate among haemodialysis patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sugar-free chewing gum's effect on patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: a meta-analysis of RCTs.BMC nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions on treatment-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Photobiomodulation for salivary gland dysfunction: aligning clinical expectations with etiology-dependent treatment responsiveness.Lasers in medical science · 2026Review
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
Background: Xerostomia is a distressing symptom experienced by patients undergoing dialysis. We sought to compare and rank the efficacy of different non-pharmacological interventions on xerostomia and salivary flow rate among dialysis patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in six English-language databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in April 2023. Screening, quality appraisal and data extraction were undertaken by two independent reviewers. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the relative efficacy of different non-pharmacological interventions. Results: The analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials involving 739 patients and eight non-pharmacological interventions. The pairwise analysis indicated that compared with the control group, sugarless candy, chewing sugarless gum, acupressure auricular and licorice mouthwash had a significant positive effect on reducing the severity of xerostomia; also, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), licorice mouthwash, sugarless chewing gum, photobiomodulation and pure water mouthwash significantly improved the saliva flow rate. The network analysis indicated that sugarless chewing gum significantly reduced the symptoms of xerostomia, while TENS and sugarless chewing gum were effective in improving the unstimulated whole salivary rate. Among dialysis patients, chewing sugarless gum and using TENS were the top-ranked interventions for relieving xerostomia and enhancing saliva flow rate, respectively. Conclusions: Several non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in relieving xerostomia and enhancing saliva flow rate. While further research may be needed to confirm and refine these findings, the interventions used in this review offer promising results and should be incorporated into the standard care of dialysis patients experiencing these symptoms to enhance their quality of life and oral health.
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.