Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection vs No BoNT (placebo or pre-treatment baseline): Salivary buffering capacity
Salivary buffering capacity did not decrease after BoNT; one of two quasi-experimental studies reported a significant increase (ungraded; no effect estimate reported).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection vs No BoNT (placebo or pre-treatment baseline) Salivary buffering capacity · Patients with drooling (sialorrhea) due to neurological disease · Before vs after BoNT injection (2018 study: significant buffering increase at 1 month; 2017 study no change), Neurological-disease populations with drooling (e.g., cerebral palsy, Parkinson disease, adults with sialorrhea); specialist clinical care Salivary buffering capacity did not decrease after BoNT; one of two quasi-experimental studies reported a significant increase (ungraded; no effect estimate reported). Oral health effects of botulinum toxin treatment for drooling: a systematic review. (2020) All outcomes | The quasi-experimental studies of Tiigimae-Saar found different results concerning the changes in buffering capacity. For the analysis carried out in 2017, no statistically significant change was observed. By contrast,… | 2 studies | 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 effects of botulinum toxin treatment for drooling: a systematic review. 2021 All outcomes | 2019-05 | 8 | Low / Low |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.