Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection vs No BoNT (placebo or pre-treatment baseline): Salivary Lactobacilli counts
Salivary Lactobacilli counts were unchanged in two studies but significantly increased in one study one month after BoNT (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 Lactobacilli counts · Patients with drooling (sialorrhea) due to neurological disease · Before vs after BoNT injection (2018 study: significant Lactobacilli increase at 1 month; Wu 2011 and 2017 study no change), Neurological-disease populations with drooling (e.g., cerebral palsy, Parkinson disease, adults with sialorrhea); specialist clinical care Salivary Lactobacilli counts were unchanged in two studies but significantly increased in one study one month after BoNT (ungraded; no effect estimate reported). Oral health effects of botulinum toxin treatment for drooling: a systematic review. (2020) All outcomes | No statistically significant changes in Lactobacilli CFU counts were reported by Wu et al. or by Tiigimae-Saar 2017. However, the 2018 study found that Lactobacilli CFU counts were significantly increased one month… | 3 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.