4.2 Review

Evaluation of the Salivary Level of Cortisol in Patients with Oral Lichen Planus: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
卷 55, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55050213

关键词

oral lichen planus; saliva; cortisol; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objective: Cortisol, as the main human glucocorticoid, is considered to be a biological marker of stress and anxiety. Since it is known that oral lichen planus (OLP) can appear and worsen during stressful events, cortisol levels have been previously studied in OLP patients. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the salivary concentration of cortisol in OLP patients compared to healthy controls. Materials and methods: Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched up to October 2018. The RevMan 5.3 software was used with the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The CMA 2.0 Software was used to evaluate the publication bias, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression as possible sources of heterogeneity. Results: 10 studies were analyzed and a total of 269 OLP patients and 268 controls were included. The pooled MD of the salivary levels of cortisol in OLP patients compared with controls was 4.27 ng/mL (95% CI: 2.33, 6.21; P < 0.0001), thus, the salivary level of cortisol in OLP patients was significantly higher than in controls. In Indian-based population studies, a significant difference in the salivary cortisol levels in OLP patients compared with controls was detected (MD = 5.62 ng/mL; 95% CI: 2.67, 8.56; P = 0.0002). In addition, a significant difference in the salivary cortisol levels in the OLP patients compared with the controls was obtained in studies performed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method (MD = 5.33 ng/mL; 95% CI: 2.72, 7.93; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: We suggest that supportive psychological treatment together with the conventional therapy could increase patients' capability to prevent stress, anxiety, and depression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据