Xerostomia and Salivary Flow in Patients Taking Antihypertensive Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this systematic review are (1) to compare the prevalence of xerostomia and hyposalivation between patients taking antihypertensive drugs with a control group (CG), (2) to compare salivary flow rate between patients treated with a CG, and (3) to identify which antihypertensives produce xerostomia. This systematic review was carried out according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. To evaluate methodological quality of the eligible studies Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias for clinical trials and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale case-control studies were used. The databases were searched for studies up to November 19th 2019. The search strategy yielded 6201 results and 13 publications were finally included (five clinical trials and eight case-control studies). The results of the included studies did not provide evidence to state that patients taking antihypertensives suffer more xerostomia or hyposalivation than patients not taking them. With regard to salivary flow, only two clinical studies showed a significant decrease in salivary flow and even one showed a significant increase after treatment. The case-control studies showed great variability in salivary flow, but in this case most studies showed how salivary flow is lower in patients medicated with antihypertensive drugs. The great variability of antihypertensive drugs included, the types of studies and the outcomes collected made it impossible to study which antihypertensive drug produces more salivary alterations. The quality assessment showed how each of the studies was of low methodological quality. Therefore, future studies about this topic are necessary to confirm whether antihypertensive drugs produce salivary alterations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".