Evidence mapPaperPMID 38308289Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2024

Extensive comparison of salivary collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods: a systematic review.

Hamed Mortazavi, Amir-Ali Yousefi-Koma, Hannaneh Yousefi-Koma

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Best practices for using biological data in psychological research.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Immunological Status of Saliva in Children with Asthma by Disease Severity.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hamed MortazaviSchool of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Daneshjoo Blvd, Evin, Shahid Chamran Highway, Tehran, 1983963113, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-0778-5299
Amir-Ali Yousefi-KomaSchool of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Daneshjoo Blvd, Evin, Shahid Chamran Highway, Tehran, 1983963113, Iran. amiraliykoma@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0140-8097
Hannaneh Yousefi-KomaSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-7498-301X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman saliva as a bodily fluid-similar to blood-is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva.

designThis study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed.

resultsTwenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate.

conclusionIt is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.

Indexed as

SalivaSpecimen HandlingBiomarkersHumansTransportationBiomarkersBiomarkersCollectionSalivaSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID38308289
PMCPMC10837873

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.