Question · asked by 1 review

Gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux (GERD/LPR) vs Healthy controls: Salivary function impairment (buffering capacity, flow rate, oral pH)

Reflux is associated with impaired salivary function (notably reduced buffering capacity) as a proposed pathophysiological mechanism, based on several ungraded studies.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux (GERD/LPR) vs Healthy individuals (controls)
Salivary function impairment (buffering capacity, flow rate, oral pH) · Adults with GERD/LPR reflux · Adult patients in gastroenterology, ENT and dental clinical settings
Reflux is associated with impaired salivary function (notably reduced buffering capacity) as a proposed pathophysiological mechanism, based on several ungraded studies.
Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review. (2020) All outcomes
Mixed/controversial salivary findings: reduced salivary buffering capacity supported in three studies (Correa, Holbrook, Filipi) with low oral pH and reduced flow as additional factors in GERD patients, but Meurman and Schroeder found no significant salivary abnormalities; no pooled estimate.6 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review.
2020 All outcomes
January 1990 to December 2019 (publication period searched)24Not applicable

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

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.