Eszter Szalai , Péter Tajti , Bence Szabó , Tamás Kói , Péter Hegyi , László Márk Czumbel , Gábor Varga , Beáta Kerémi
{"title":"ORGANOLEPTIC AND HALITOMETRIC ASSESSMENTS DO NOT CORRELATE WELL IN INTRA-ORAL HALITOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS","authors":"Eszter Szalai , Péter Tajti , Bence Szabó , Tamás Kói , Péter Hegyi , László Márk Czumbel , Gábor Varga , Beáta Kerémi","doi":"10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The gold standard method for diagnosing oral halitosis is the subjective organoleptic measurement. Device-supported methods are also widespread worldwide. The challenges and safety concerns around performing organoleptic measurements during pandemics and the diversity of measuring device alternatives raised our clinical question: which halitometer is the most suitable for diagnosing halitosis?</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022320024). The search was performed on March 23, 2022 in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Adult populations with or without halitosis were included, and patients with systemic diseases were excluded. Organoleptic (subjective) measurement and the device-supported (objective) methods were compared; the primary outcome was the correlation coefficient, and the secondary was the specificity and sensitivity of the devices. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Random–effects meta analyses were performed on the outcomes, and the secondary outcomes were plotted on a common ROC plot.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1231 records were found in the 5 databases. After the selection process, 76 articles were eligible for the systematic review, and 14,635 patients were involved in the qualitative analysis. The pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient (c.c.) for sulfide monitors was 0.65; 95% CIs: [0.53-0.74]; I<sup>2</sup> = 95%, <em>P</em> < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for portable gas chromatographs was 0.69; 95% CIs: [0.63-0.74]; I<sup>2</sup> = 12%, <em>P</em> < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for gas chromatographs was 0.76; 95% CIs: [0.67-0.83]; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, <em>P</em> < .01.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>None of the most commonly used halitometers proved to be significantly superior to the others. Halimeter and OralChroma measurements did not correlate well with the organoleptic level of oral halitosis in adults. Therefore, better halitometers need to be developed as an alternative to organoleptic measurements.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48736,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532338223000404","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The gold standard method for diagnosing oral halitosis is the subjective organoleptic measurement. Device-supported methods are also widespread worldwide. The challenges and safety concerns around performing organoleptic measurements during pandemics and the diversity of measuring device alternatives raised our clinical question: which halitometer is the most suitable for diagnosing halitosis?
Methods
This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022320024). The search was performed on March 23, 2022 in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Adult populations with or without halitosis were included, and patients with systemic diseases were excluded. Organoleptic (subjective) measurement and the device-supported (objective) methods were compared; the primary outcome was the correlation coefficient, and the secondary was the specificity and sensitivity of the devices. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Random–effects meta analyses were performed on the outcomes, and the secondary outcomes were plotted on a common ROC plot.
Results
A total of 1231 records were found in the 5 databases. After the selection process, 76 articles were eligible for the systematic review, and 14,635 patients were involved in the qualitative analysis. The pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient (c.c.) for sulfide monitors was 0.65; 95% CIs: [0.53-0.74]; I2 = 95%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for portable gas chromatographs was 0.69; 95% CIs: [0.63-0.74]; I2 = 12%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for gas chromatographs was 0.76; 95% CIs: [0.67-0.83]; I2 = 0%, P < .01.
Discussion
None of the most commonly used halitometers proved to be significantly superior to the others. Halimeter and OralChroma measurements did not correlate well with the organoleptic level of oral halitosis in adults. Therefore, better halitometers need to be developed as an alternative to organoleptic measurements.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice presents timely original articles, as well as reviews of articles on the results and outcomes of clinical procedures and treatment. The Journal advocates the use or rejection of a procedure based on solid, clinical evidence found in literature. The Journal''s dynamic operating principles are explicitness in process and objectives, publication of the highest-quality reviews and original articles, and an emphasis on objectivity.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
