Question · asked by 1 review
Living with HIV and undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART/HAART) vs Healthy HIV-negative controls: Salivary immunoglobulin A (SIgA) concentration
- Population
- Children or adolescents
- Intervention
- Living with HIV and undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART/HAART)
- Comparison
- Healthy HIV-negative controls
- Outcome
- Salivary immunoglobulin A (SIgA) concentration
No significant difference in total salivary IgA between CLWH and healthy controls, though anti-Candida SIgA was higher in HIV groups; narrative only.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Living with HIV and undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART/HAART) vs Healthy HIV-negative controls Salivary immunoglobulin A (SIgA) concentration · Children and adolescents (<18 years) · Cross-sectional (case-control; single time point), HIV pediatric/ART clinics, AIDS centers, and hospitals in Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, and West Africa (Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Senegal) No significant difference in total salivary IgA between CLWH and healthy controls, though anti-Candida SIgA was higher in HIV groups; narrative only. Oral Health Status of Children and Adolescents Living with HIV Undergoing Antiretroviral Therapy: A… (2022) All outcomes | Pomarico 2009 reported no significant difference in total SIgA among HIV-ART, HIV-HAART, and healthy children, but significantly higher anti-Candida albicans SIgA in the two HIV groups; no effect estimate pooled. | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral Health Status of Children and Adolescents Living with HIV Undergoing Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2022 All outcomes | Inception to 29 July 2022 | 21 | Not applicable |
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.