Question · asked by 1 review
Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum: Salivary flow rate
- Population
- Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth
- Intervention
- Gum chewing (sugar-free)
- Comparison
- No chewing gum
- Outcome
- Salivary flow rate
Across 19 studies the effect of gum chewing on stimulated and/or unstimulated salivary flow rate was mixed (9 positive, 10 no effect); this broad outcome was not meta-analyzed.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No gum chewing (control) Salivary flow rate, stimulated and/or unstimulated (narrative synthesis) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth · Various (single session to 12 months), Haemodialysis units, elderly / geriatric care, cancer and palliative care, and xerostomia / hyposalivation clinics (studies from multiple countries) Across 19 studies the effect of gum chewing on stimulated and/or unstimulated salivary flow rate was mixed (9 positive, 10 no effect); this broad outcome was not meta-analyzed. The effect of gum chewing on xerostomia and salivary flow rate in elderly and medically compromised… (2023) All outcomes | Narrative vote-count: of 19 studies measuring stimulated and/or unstimulated saliva flow rate, 9 found a positive effect of gum chewing [17,18,22,24,27,35,36,38,39] and 10 detected no effect… | 19 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.