Prevalence of hyposalivation in older people: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The proportion of elders is increasing worldwide, and hyposalivation has been associated with the ageing process. Therefore, there has been growing interest in the frequency of hyposalivation in older people since it can cause transient or permanent problems that could affect oral health. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of hyposalivation in older people (aged ≥ 60 years). METHODS: The review was registered at Prospero - International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under number CRD42018106322. The search was performed in six electronic databases (Embase, LILACS, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and Abstracts in Social Gerodontology) and grey literature (Google Scholar) for articles published up to February 2019. The methodology of selected studies was evaluated using the Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review (MAStARI) risk of bias checklist. Meta-analyses were performed using Medcalc and Stata 15. RESULTS: Thirteen studies totalising 3,885 individuals (≥60 years) were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed an overall hyposalivation prevalence of 33.37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.90 - 43.57, P < .0001, n = 3,447). The prevalence of hyposalivation for unstimulated and stimulated methods was 33.39% (95% CI 21.08 - 46.96, P < .0001, n = 2,425 individuals) and 30.47% (95% CI 22.53-39.04, P < .0001, n = 1,495 individuals), respectively. Most of the studies were evaluated as low risk of bias. Some study limitations were related to the observational studies potential risk of bias, and different criteria to measure saliva flow rate. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the overall prevalence of hyposalivation in older people is 33.37%. When considering stimulated methods, the prevalence of hyposalivation was slightly lower (30.47%).
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".