ArticleBMC oral health2026
Salivary biomarkers in burning mouth syndrome: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association of Vitamin B6 and Homocysteine-ACTH Coupling With Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Burning Mouth Syndrome: An Exploratory Case-Control Study.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBurning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) is a chronic orofacial pain condition without objective diagnostic criteria and with a substantial impact on quality of life. This umbrella review aimed to evaluate the available evidence on salivary biomarkers in BMS, identify which biomarkers show the most consistent associations with the condition, and assess the methodological quality of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, TRIP, and Google Scholar was conducted without language or date restrictions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing salivary biomarkers in patients with BMS were included. Of the 561 records screened, six reviews met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
resultsAMSTAR 2 appraisal rated four reviews as moderate confidence and two as low confidence; none was rated high or critically low. The evidence base showed very high overlap among primary studies, indicating that repeated findings across reviews should not be interpreted as fully independent replications. Cortisol showed the most consistent evidence of elevation in BMS. α-amylase and IgA were also frequently elevated, particularly in reviews on stress-related biomarkers. However, their interpretation was limited by methodological heterogeneity, overlap of primary studies and limited disease specificity. Cytokines, sex hormones, opiorphin, trace elements and oxidative stress-related markers showed inconsistent or sparse evidence.
conclusionsSalivary cortisol, α-amylase and IgA may reflect stress-related neuroendocrine, autonomic and mucosal immune dysregulation in BMS. However, current evidence remains methodologically limited and does not support the use of any salivary biomarker as a standalone diagnostic test. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Saliva-based biomarkers may support mechanistic phenotyping in future research, but standardised protocols, rigorous study designs and improved patient stratification are required before they can inform clinical decision-making.
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.