ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Assessment of combined efficacy of
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Xerostomia is a common adverse effect of radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancers, leading to significant impairment of oral health and overall quality of life. Evidence-based guidelines for managing radiation-induced xerostomia remain limited, and the majority of available options provide only temporary symptomatic relief. In Ayurveda, this condition is described under Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate the combined effect of Materials and methods: A total of 20 patients were enrolled with clinically diagnosed radiotherapy-induced xerostomia. Subjective outcomes were assessed using a xerostomia questionnaire and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Objective outcomes, including unstimulated salivary flow, stimulated salivary flow, and salivary pH, were evaluated using sialometry and analyzed using the paired Results: After 30 days of intervention, significant improvement was observed in multiple subjective symptoms, including oral dryness, chewing and swallowing difficulty, choking sensation, sticky saliva, impaired enjoyment of food, and difficulty in speech. Objective parameters-unstimulated and stimulated sialometry values and salivary pH-also exhibited statistically significant improvement. Conclusion: Clinical trial registration: Identifier CTRI/2019/12/022396.
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.