Question · asked by 1 review
Acupuncture vs sham: Stimulated whole saliva (SWS)
- Population
- Adults with dry mouth due to radiotherapy (head and neck cancer) or Sjogren's Syndrome
- Intervention
- Acupuncture
- Comparison
- sham
- Outcome
- Stimulated whole saliva (SWS)
Acupuncture may leads to higher stimulated whole saliva (SWS) compared with placebo (sham acupuncture) (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Acupuncture vs Placebo (sham acupuncture) Stimulated whole saliva (SWS) · Adults with dry mouth due to radiotherapy (head and neck cancer) or Sjogren's Syndrome · 12 months (1 year follow-up) Acupuncture may leads to higher stimulated whole saliva (SWS) compared with placebo (sham acupuncture) (low certainty). Interventions for the management of dry mouth: non‐pharmacological interventions (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.28 [0.09, 0.47] | 2 studies · 54 participants | Low |
Acupuncture vs Placebo (sham acupuncture) Stimulated whole saliva (SWS) · Adults with dry mouth due to radiotherapy (head and neck cancer) or Sjogren's Syndrome · End of treatment (4-6 weeks) Acupuncture may leads to higher stimulated whole saliva (SWS) compared with placebo (sham acupuncture) (low certainty). Interventions for the management of dry mouth: non‐pharmacological interventions (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.19 [0.07, 0.31] | 3 studies · 71 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the management of dry mouth: non‐pharmacological interventions 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2013-04 | 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.