ArticleOTO open
Biotène Versus HydraSmile for Radiation-Induced Xerostomia: Randomized Double-Blind Cross-Over Study.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for radiation-induced xerostomia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Emerging patterns in nanoparticle-based therapeutic approaches for rheumatoid arthritis: A comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis spanning two decades.Open life sciences · 2025Article
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
Objective: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of 2 artificial saliva substitutes (Biotène vs HydraSmile) in the symptomatic management of radiation-induced xerostomia. Study Design: Randomized double-blind cross-over study. Setting: Single tertiary care academic institution. Methods: Included adult patients Results: A total of 91 participants were included (mean age 63.0 years [SD 9.7]; 85.7% male; 97.8% White). Change in overall xerostomia score with respect to baseline was not significantly different between HydraSmile and Biotène (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.35 to 4.81). Compared to water alone, both HydraSmile (mean difference 7.45, 95% CI 3.61-11.29) and Biotène (mean difference 7.24, 95% CI 3.06-11.43) significantly improved overall xerostomia score. Forty (44%) patients reported a preference for Biotène, 46 (50.5%) preferred HydraSmile, and 5 (5.5%) had no preference. Patients who preferred Biotène did not significantly benefit from HydraSmile, whereas those who preferred HydraSmile did not significantly benefit from Biotène. Conclusion: Biotène and HydraSmile significantly improved oral dryness among patients with radiation-induced xerostomia. While neither product demonstrated treatment superiority, individual product preference was predictive of greatest treatment benefit.
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.