Table.
GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Halitosis.
| Important outcomes | Breath odour, Quality of life | ||||||||
| Studies (Participants) | Outcome | Comparison | Type of evidence | Quality | Consistency | Directness | Effect size | GRADE | Comment |
| What are the effects of treatments in people with physiological halitosis? | |||||||||
| 5 (382) | Breath odour | Regular-use mouthwash versus placebo | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for methodological flaws and incomplete reporting of results |
| 4 (less than 343 people) | Breath odour | Regular-use mouthwashes versus each other | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for methodological flaws and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (21) | Breath odour | Regular-use mouthwash versus artificial saliva, sugar-free gum, tongue cleaning, or zinc toothpastes | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results; directness point deducted for uncertainty about the definition of the outcome |
| 1 (21) | Breath odour | Mouthwash plus tongue scraping versus placebo | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results; directness point deducted for uncertainty about the definition of the outcome |
| 1 (21) | Breath odour | Tongue scraping versus no tongue scraping | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results; directness point deducted for uncertainty about the definition of the outcome |
| 1 (187) | Breath odour | Zinc toothpastes versus placebo | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.