Dataset Information

A systematic review of methods to diagnose oral dryness and salivary gland function.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The most advocated clinical method for diagnosing salivary dysfunction is to quantitate unstimulated and stimulated whole saliva (sialometry). Since there is an expected and wide variation in salivary flow rates among individuals, the assessment of dysfunction can be difficult. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of the evidence for the efficacy of diagnostic methods used to identify oral dryness.

Methods

A literature search, with specific indexing terms and a hand search, was conducted for publications that described a method to diagnose oral dryness. The electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used as data sources. Four reviewers selected publications on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from the selected publications using a protocol. Original studies were interpreted with the aid of Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool.

Results

The database searches resulted in 224 titles and abstracts. Of these abstracts, 80 publications were judged to meet the inclusion criteria and read in full. A total of 18 original studies were judged relevant and interpreted for this review. In all studies, the results of the test method were compared to those of a reference method.Based on the interpretation (with the aid of the QUADAS tool) it can be reported that the patient selection criteria were not clearly described and the test or reference methods were not described in sufficient detail for it to be reproduced. None of the included studies reported information on uninterpretable/intermediate results nor data on observer or instrument variation. Seven of the studies presented their results as a percentage of correct diagnoses.

Conclusions

The evidence for the efficacy of clinical methods to assess oral dryness is sparse and it can be stated that improved standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy are needed in order to assure the methodological quality of studies. There is need for effective diagnostic criteria and functional tests in order to detect those individuals with oral dryness who may require oral treatment, such as alleviation of discomfort and/or prevention of diseases.

SUBMITTER: Lofgren CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3573918 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical trials of biologics in improving the salivary gland (SG) function in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS), which has not been analyzed critically and systematically. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical trials that reported effects of biological treatment on the SG function and safety in pSS patients. Inclusion criteria were defined following participants, interventions, comparisons, outcome, and study design (PICOS) recommendations. The objective index (the change of unstimulated whole saliva (UWS) flow) and the serious adverse event (SAE) were assessed as main outcome measures. A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the treatment was conducted. Quality assessment, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were assessed. The effect size together with a 95% confidence interval was used to estimate the efficacy and safety of biological treatment and was plotted as a forest plot. Results: The literature search yielded 6,678 studies, nine of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two non-RCT clinical studies. Generally, biologics do not significantly increase UWS from the baseline of pSS patients compared to the control group at a matched time point (p = 0.55; standard mean difference, SMD = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.11 and 0.21). However, pSS patients with shorter disease duration (≤3 years; SMD = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.06 and 0.85) were prone to have a better response to biological treatment by showing higher increased UWS than patients with longer disease duration (> 3 years; SMD = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.21 and 0.15) (p = 0.03). For the meta-analysis of the safety of biological treatment, the SAEs in the biologics group were significantly higher than those of the control group (p = 0.0021; log odds ratio, OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.37 and 1.69). Conclusion: Biological intervention during the early course of the disease may benefit pSS patients better than that during the late course. Significantly, more SAEs in the biologics group indicate that the safety of biologics needs to be addressed for future biological clinical trials and treatment.