Primary study · included by 1 review

Comparison between saliva stimulants and a saliva substitute in patients with xerostomia and hyposalivation

Stewart 1998 · Stewart Carol M., Jones Anne C., Bates Robert E., et al. · Special Care in Dentistry · 1998

doi:10.1111/j.1754-4505.1998.tb01136.xjournal-article

Trial PICO

Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.

Results

Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.

Included by

The effect of gum chewing on xerostomia and salivary flow rate in elderly and medically compromised subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2023 · cited as Stewart 1998 · Table 2/Table 3, Ref [34]; meta-analysis (unstimulated saliva flow, Fig. 5); also xerostomia

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Unstimulated whole salivary flow rate Daily chewing gum for 2 weeks or longer vs No gum chewing or control · 2 to 12 weeks	SMD per week 0.06	6 studies · 291 participants	Ungraded
Unstimulated whole salivary flow rate Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No gum chewing (control) · Gum chewed daily for >=2 weeks (2 to 12 weeks; multiple time points for Kim and Ozen)	SMD 0.44 [0.22, 0.66]	6 studies · 291 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.