The effect of chewing gum on dry mouth, interdialytic weight gain, and intradialytic symptoms: A prospective, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The major salivary glands can be stimulated by chewing gum to increase saliva flow and decrease xerostomia. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of chewing gum on dry mouth, interdialytic weight gain, and intradialytic symptoms in hemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled single-blind study was conducted with patients who had been treated for at least 6 months with sessions 3 days a week for 4 hours at two HD units. Patients were randomly allocated to chewing gum group or the control group. In the chewing gum group, gum was chewed for 10 minutes six times a day, and when the patients felt mouth dryness or were thirsty. In the nonchewing gum group, gum was not chewed. The patients were followed-up for 3 months. A total of three saliva samples were taken before starting treatment at the first, 12th, and 36th HD session. Data were collected with the "Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)," "Hemodialysis Patients Fluid Control Scale," "Dialysis Symptom Index," and "Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale" at baseline, week 4, week 8, and week 12. FINDINGS: The study was completed with a total of 44 patients consisting of 22 patients in the each group. The second and third month VAS values (xerostomia) of the patients in the chewing gum groups were statistically significantly lower than those in the control group (P = 0.014, P < 0.001, respectively). The third month salivary flow rate in the chewing gum group was higher than the values in the control group patients (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: It is anticipated that this study will raise nurses' awareness of dry mouth and encourage future studies on interventions to increase the salivary flow rate to prevent or treat dry mouth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".