↓ Skip to main content

Management of gag reflex for patients undergoing dental treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Management of gag reflex for patients undergoing dental treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011116.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eachempati Prashanti, Kumbargere N Sumanth, P Renjith George, Laxminarayan Karanth, Htoo Htoo Kyaw Soe

Abstract

Gag reflex is an involuntary defence mechanism to protect the pharynx and throat from foreign objects. Gagging is a common problem encountered during dental treatment, which makes therapeutic procedures distressing and often difficult or even impossible to perform. Various interventions can be used to control the gag reflex; for example, anti-nausea medicines, sedatives, local and general anaesthetics, herbal remedies, behavioural therapies, acupressure, acupuncture, and prosthetic devices. To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of gagging in people undergoing dental treatment. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2014), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 April 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 April 2015), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 7 April 2015), AMED via OVID (1985 to 7 April 2015), IADR Conference Proceedings (online, 2001 to 7 April 2015), clinical trial registries and Google search engine. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving people who were given a pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention to manage gagging that interfered with dental treatment. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We excluded trials with participants who had central or peripheral nervous system disorders; who had oral lesions or were on systemic medications that might affect the gag sensation; or had undergone surgery which might alter anatomy permanently. Two review authors independently selected trials. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included trials. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. One RCT, a trial on acupuncture at P6 (Pericardium 6 - situated on the anterior surface of wrist), met the inclusion criteria. It included 33 adults who reported previous nausea during dental procedures that hindered or prevented dental treatment from being carried out properly. The trial was at unclear risk of bias. The outcome reported in this trial was reduction in gagging. We obtained data for our primary outcome (successful completion of dental procedure) by contacting the trial author.Successful completion of dental procedure reported by the assessor showed no difference in acupuncture at P6 group compared to sham acupuncture (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.57). Reduction in gagging as reported by the assessor showed no difference between acupuncture at P6 and sham acupuncture at any stage (stage 1: MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.93; stage 2: MD 0.49, 95 % CI -0.26 to 1.24; stage 3: MD 0.67, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.53). Reduction in gagging as reported by the participant also showed no difference between acupuncture at P6 and sham acupuncture (MD 0.86, 95% CI -1.13 to 2.85). The quality of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.No noteworthy adverse effects were reported.We did not find trials evaluating any other interventions used to manage gagging in people undergoing dental treatment. We found very low quality evidence from a single trial that was insufficient to conclude if there is any benefit of acupuncture in reducing gagging and allowing successful completion of dental procedures. We did not find any evidence on any other interventions for managing the gag reflex during dental treatment. More well-designed and well-reported trials evaluating different interventions are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 9 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 41 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,041,979
of 26,147,626 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,973
of 13,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,498
of 288,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,147,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.