SynthesisJournal of proteome research2026
MS-Based Crevicular Fluid Proteomics for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Conditions: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of proteome research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current literature on mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomic analysis of the crevicular fluid in different periodontal and peri-implant conditions, and to summarize methodological differences among studies. A search of electronic databases was conducted and clinical studies using MS-based proteomics in gingival (GCF) and/or peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) were considered for inclusion. The findings were synthesized and methodological variations described. A modified QUADOMICS tool was applied for risk of bias assessment. Thirteen studies; five longitudinal and eight cross-sectional were analyzed. Patients ranged from 10 to 190, with 42 to 3070 human proteins identified. Sample preparation and preanalytical procedures differed among studies. Protein identification, characterization and quantification were conducted using different algorithms and computer software against different databases. Different strategies were used to select distinctive proteins. Six studies attempted at biomarker development using different protein selection and validation criteria. While six studies presented moderate quality, seven were considered to be low quality. The present findings emphasize the need for methodological harmonization, including standardized protocols for GCF/PICF collection, harmonized proteomic workflows, multicenter longitudinal validation studies, and targeted mass spectrometry approaches for biomarker verification before they can be translated into the clinical practice.
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.