ReviewNew microbes and new infections
The efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in human saliva: A systematic review.
Review in New microbes and new infections. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Mouthwashes Delivered via Dental Unit Waterlines in Reducing Aerosolized Surrogate SARS-CoV-2.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of mouthwashes to reduce the SARS-COV-2 load in saliva of adults with diagnosis of COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Ingredients in Commercially Available Mouthwashes.International dental journal · 2024Review
- Administration of Clinical COVID-19 Mouthwashing Protocol and Potential Modulation of Pediatric Oral Bacterial Prevalence ofPediatric reports · 2023Article
- Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Clinical Mouthwash Protocol and Prevalence of the Oral PathogenMethods and protocols · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate existing randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies on the efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in human saliva. Searches with pertinent search terms were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant records published up to Oct 15, 2022. Google Scholar and ProQuest were searched for grey literature. Manual searches were conducted as well for any pertinent articles. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022324894). Eligible studies were critically appraised for risk of bias and quality of evidence to assess the efficacy of mouthwash in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva. Eleven studies were included. The effect on viral load using various types of mouthwash was observed, including chlorhexidine (CHX), povidone-iodine (PI), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), hydrogen peroxide (HP), ß-cyclodextrin-citrox mouthwash (CDCM), and Hypochlorous acid (HCIO). Eight articles discussed CHX use. Five were found to be significant and three did not show any significant decrease in viral loads. Eight studies reviewed the use of PI, with five articles identifying a significant decrease in viral load, and three not showing a significant decrease in viral load. HP was reviewed in four studies, two studies identified significant viral load reductions, and two did not. CPC was reviewed in four studies, two of which identified significant viral load reductions, and two did not. CDCM was reviewed in one article which found a significant decrease in viral load reduction. Also, HCIO which was evaluated in one study indicated no significant difference in CT value. The current systematic review indicates that based on these eleven studies, mouthwashes are effective at reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva. However, further studies should be performed on larger populations with different mouthwashes. The overall quality of evidence was high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.