Question · asked by 1 review
Pilocarpine vs Artificial saliva: Other oral symptoms (dysgeusia, dysphagia)
- Population
- Patients with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction
- Intervention
- Pilocarpine
- Comparison
- Artificial saliva
- Outcome
- Other oral symptoms (dysgeusia, dysphagia)
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pilocarpine hydrochloride (parasympathomimetic) vs Artificial saliva (mucin-based) Other oral symptoms (dysgeusia, dysphagia) · Patients with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | Davies 1994 assessed dysgeusia and dysphagia; pilocarpine reported more effective than mucin-based artificial saliva for dysgeusia. No pooled data. | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |
Pilocarpine hydrochloride (parasympathomimetic) vs Artificial saliva (mucin-based) Other oral symptoms (dysgeusia, dysphagia) · Patients with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy (2007) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD003782.PUB2, superseded | Davies 1994 assessed dysgeusia and dysphagia; pilocarpine reported more effective than mucin-based artificial saliva for dysgeusia. No pooled data. | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2015-07 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.