SynthesisBrazilian oral research2025
Salivary flow rate in children and teenagers with Down syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian oral research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The purpose of our review was to group the evidence and attempt to provide a consensus on the behavior of salivary flow rate in patients with Down syndrome. Observational studies evaluating salivary flow rate in children and teenagers with Down syndrome compared with non-syndrome individuals were selected. Ten sources of information were researched. The risk of bias was assessed by using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale tool . Inverse Variance was ty the SMD (95% Confidence Interval). The certainty of the evidence was determined according to the GRADE approach. Fourteen studies were evaluated. The results showed, with a very low certainty of evidence, that children and teenagers with Down syndrome present a lower salivary flow rate compared with non-syndrome controls (SMD: -1.71, 95%IC: -2.81; -0.60, p < 0.05), with significant differences in the saliva collection methods (p < 0.05) (Unstimulated saliva, SMD -5.07, 95%CI: -7.96; -2.18, p < 0.01; Stimulated saliva, SMD -0.80, 95%IC: -1.78; 0.17, p = 0.11). The behavior of the salivary flow rate is not significantly different between the age groups (p = 0.60) (up to 5 years old, SMD -1.85, 95%CI: -2.90; -0.81, p < 0.01; 2 to 18 years old, SMD -1.51, 95%CI: -2.24; -0.78, p < 0.01), and the sex (p = 0.70) (Male, SMD -1.77, 95%CI: -2.39; -1.16, p < 0.01; Female, SMD -1.53, 95%CI: -2.58; -0.48, p < 0.01). Children and teenagers with Down syndrome present a lower salivary flow rate with an unstimulated saliva collection method compared to non-syndrome.
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.