ArticleBMC oral health2026
Dry Mouth by Report or by Measure? Comparison of Fox and Xerostomia Inventory Scores with Sialometry.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
- Pharmacists' role in recognising medication-related oral health risks in aged care: a qualitative study of pharmacists' and dentists' perspectives.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Subjective Xerostomia and Chairside Salivary Dysfunction in Institutionalized Older Adults: Concordance and Exploratory Derivation of a Five-Item Short Form.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its high prevalence, xerostomia remains frequently misunderstood and often incorrectly assumed to be synonymous with reduced salivary flow. In reality, these two terms- xerostomia and hyposalivation - are not interchangeable. We aimed to quantify how Fox questionnaire and the Xerostomia Inventory (XI) relate to unstimulated salivary flow, identify the most informative items, and evaluate whether total scores and item‑based models discriminate clinically relevant hyposalivation thresholds and treatment‑related deterioration.
methodsWe analyzed 101 adults with overactive bladder contributing 202 paired assessments (fixed order: off‑treatment baseline, on‑treatment follow‑up). Xerostomia was assessed using the Fox questionnaire (0-10) and Xerostomia Inventory (XI; 11-55). Unstimulated salivary flow (mL/min) was measured with the 5‑min spitting method. Associations between questionnaire scores and salivary flow were summarized using Pearson correlations. Discrimination for hyposalivation thresholds (<0.10, <0.066, <0.033 mL/min) was evaluated using ROC/AUC with cluster bootstrap 95% CIs; item‑based screening was explored using LASSO with patient‑level cross‑validation.
resultsContinuous associations: Fox scores were more strongly associated with salivary flow than XI (r = -0.356 vs -0.160), while Fox and XI totals were strongly correlated (r = 0.71). Threshold discrimination: for hyposalivation <0.10 mL/min, AUC was 0.704 for Fox and 0.586 for XI. A sparse XI item model (six items) improved discrimination compared with the XI total score (CV‑AUC 0.709 vs 0.580). During treatment, 29/101 participants met the deterioration endpoint (≥50% reduction in flow and/or incident hyposalivation).
conclusionsQuestionnaire scores showed limited criterion validity for objective hypofunction. Fox performed better than XI for identifying hyposalivation, and item‑focused models were promising but exploratory. We propose a pragmatic diagnostic approach in which questionnaires quantify symptom burden and triage risk, while sialometry confirms hyposalivation when clinically relevant.
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.