Question · asked by 1 review
Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum: Dry mouth (xerostomia)
- Population
- Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth
- Intervention
- Gum chewing (sugar-free)
- Comparison
- No chewing gum
- Outcome
- Dry mouth (xerostomia)
Gum chewing was linked with improved self-reported xerostomia / dry mouth in most studies (12 of 17 positive, 5 no effect); heterogeneous instruments precluded meta-analysis.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No gum chewing (control) Self-reported xerostomia / symptoms of dry mouth · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth · Various (single session to 3 months), Haemodialysis units, elderly / geriatric care, cancer and palliative care, and xerostomia / hyposalivation clinics (studies from multiple countries) Gum chewing was linked with improved self-reported xerostomia / dry mouth in most studies (12 of 17 positive, 5 no effect); heterogeneous instruments precluded meta-analysis. The effect of gum chewing on xerostomia and salivary flow rate in elderly and medically compromised… (2023) All outcomes | Narrative vote-count: of 17 studies measuring self-reported xerostomia / dry mouth, 12 found a positive effect of gum chewing [18,19,21,23,24,25,26,27,30,31,38,40] and 5 detected no effect [17,29,33,34,37]. No study… | 17 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The effect of gum chewing on xerostomia and salivary flow rate in elderly and medically compromised subjects: a systematic review and… 2023 All outcomes | 31 March 2023 | 26 | Low / Low |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.