Anticholinergic treatment for sialorrhea in children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sialorrhea in children can be associated with adverse physical and social effects. Treatment using anticholinergic medications has been shown to offer symptomatic relief, but there is no consensus regarding which treatment is the most efficacious. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of anticholinergic medications for sialorrhea in children. Methods: A systematic review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and the Web of Science from inception until April 29, 2020. Studies reporting original data on the efficacy of anticholinergic medications in the management of sialorrhea in children aged 0 to 17 years of age were included. This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. Data on study design, setting, population, pharmacologic intervention(s), comparator(s), outcomes, and results were extracted and summarized. Results: The search strategy identified 2,800 studies of which 27 articles were included in the synthesis, including five randomized controlled trials. Each anticholinergic undergoing experimental study (glycopyrrolate, scopolamine/hyoscine, trihexyphenidyl/benzhexol, benztropine, and atropine) showed evidence of efficacy. Adverse side effects were common. Significant heterogeneity exists in the studies' methodology and the variability of outcome measures used between studies precluded a meta-analysis. Conclusions: Glycopyrrolate, scopolamine/hyoscine, trihexyphenidyl/benzhexol, benztropine, and atropine have all shown efficacy in the treatment of sialorrhea in children. The small number of reports and the variability in study design precluded a meta-analysis. More studies are needed with uniformity in outcome measures to help guide evidence-based decision making. A guidance table is presented.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".