Abstract
Drooling, or sialorrhea, is a common condition in patients with cerebral palsy, rare diseases, and neurodevelopmental disorders. The goal of this review was to identify the different properties of sialorrhea outcome measures in children. Four databases were analysed in search of sialorrhea measurement tools, and the review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used for quality appraisal of the outcome measures. The initial search yielded 891 articles, 430 of which were duplicates. Thus, 461 full-text articles were evaluated. Among these, 21 met the inclusion criteria, reporting 19 different outcome measures that encompassed both quantitative measures and parent/proxy questionnaires.
Conclusions: Among the outcome measures found through this review, the 5-min Drooling Quotient can objectively discriminate sialorrhea frequency in patients with developmental disabilities. The Drooling Impact Scale can be used to evaluate changes after treatment. The modified drooling questionnaire can measure sialorrhea severity and its social acceptability. To date, the tests proposed in this review are the only tools displaying adequate measurement properties. The acquisition of new data about reliability, validity, and responsiveness of these tests will confirm our findings.
What is Known: • Although sialorrhea is a recognized problem in children with disabilities, especially those with cerebral palsy (CP), there is a lack of confidence among physicians in measuring sialorrhea. | |
What is New: • Few sialorrhea measures are available for clinicians that may guide decision-making and at the same time have strong evidence to provide confidence in the results. • A combination of both quantitative measures and parent/proxy questionnaires might provide an adequate measurement of sialorrhea in children. |
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Drooling, or sialorrhea, is a well-recognised health issue in children with disabilities, especially those with cerebral palsy (CP). It can be defined as the unintentional spill of saliva from the mouth [1], even if several other definitions have been reported [2,3,4,5,6]. Although sialorrhea is normal in infants, it is considered pathological after the age of 4 years old [7]. In addition, severe sialorrhea can give rise to a number of limiting physical and psychosocial complications such as social isolation and low self-esteem [1, 8].
Although sialorrhea severity varies daily, and sometimes hourly or depending on daily life circumstances, there is a need to quantify its frequency and its impact on children’s and their caregivers’ quality of life [9]. Various interventions have been described to reduce or eliminate sialorrhea. These include surgery, botulinum toxin (BoNT-A and BoNT-B), anticholinergic medications, and oral-motor therapies [1]. This challenging condition should always be addressed by a multidisciplinary team, specifically by professionals with experience in disability and in children with special needs [10]. However, there currently is a lack of knowledge among paediatricians on how to adequately quantify sialorrhea. In fact, Parr et al. found that very few paediatricians in the UK use standardised methods to measure sialorrhea and the effectiveness of medications or their adverse effects [9]. Hence, the aim of this review was to appraise the measurement properties of drooling measures validated in the paediatric population.
Methods
Search strategy
Supervised by R.O., E.S. performed a systematic electronic literature search of the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL (EBSCO). Search terms combined text words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), as shown in Supplementary Table 1. MeSH terms included three components: terms referring to drooling/sialorrhea, target population and assessment methods.
Study eligibility
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [11] (Supplementary Table 2) and after removing duplicates, all full-text articles were screened by two independent researchers; any discrepancies were solved in a consensus meeting. The articles were included if they reported objective or subjective outcome measures of sialorrhea that were appropriate for use in children aged 0–18 years with or without special needs, that were freely-available, and written in English. No date limit was set, to avoid excluding potentially useful evaluation methods and questionnaires. Exclusion criteria were absence of statistical numerical results within the study except for those studies describing an outcome measure for the first time, those only assessing salivary production and those evaluating post-therapeutic outcomes.
Data collection and assessment
Included studies were assessed independently by two researchers. Sialorrhea outcome measures identified in all selected papers were classified depending on two domains: quantitative measures versus parent or proxy reports with quality of life evaluation. Articles were reviewed for the evaluation of qualitative features, such as domain assessed, time needed for questionnaire administration, population, and age of population. Scoring and its interpretation were also extracted. If the article was deemed worthy of inclusion but was lacking specific information, its corresponding author could be contacted for clarifications.
The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist (July 2019 version) [12] was used to evaluate the methodological quality of each outcome measure described in the included studies. The COSMIN checklist was developed by authors based on previous COSMIN checklist versions [13, 14] and on the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for PROMs [15, 16]. A 4-point rating scale (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate) was used to assess each standard recommended by the checklist in each article. As the COSMIN checklist does not provide an overall rating score, we used the “worst-score counts principle” [14] to obtain one.
Data on validity, reliability, and responsiveness (described in Supplementary Table 3) of all measures were also collected, though data collection on construct validity, content validity, and internal consistency was not applicable for quantitative outcome measures. In addition, the quantitative results for each study have been rated against the Terwee et al. [17] criteria.
A positive rating was assigned to sensitivity and specificity when equal or over 0.80 [18], to criterion validity if the correlation with the gold standard was at least 0.70 [17], to reliability when the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or weighted Kappa was at least 0.70 in a sample size of at least 50 patients [17], and to measurement error if authors provided convincing arguments that it was acceptable. A positive rating was given to internal consistency when factor analysis was applied and Cronbach’s alpha was between 0.70 and 0.95 [17]. For responsiveness, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of at least 0.70 or Guyatt’s responsiveness ratio (RR) of at least 1.96 was considered adequate [17]. A gold standard for measuring sialorrhea was considered “gold” only when it was the original long version to which a shortened instrument was compared to. Feasibility was rated as adequate if the test needed up to 10–15 min to be completed and if the questionnaire was self-administered [18]. The primary purpose (predictive, discriminative, or evaluative) of tools evaluating sialorrhea was also assessed [17, 19].
Results
The initial literature search yielded 891 articles. Duplicates (n = 430) were excluded and the remaining 461 “full-text” manuscripts were evaluated. Agreement between the two independent researchers reviewing the articles was high (Cohen’s Kappa > 0.8). Of the 461, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, as shown in Fig. 1. Only one author (van der Burg) [8] had to be contacted to clarify the exact number of questionnaires developed in his study. Overall, 19 sialorrhea assessment tools were identified (Table 1): 5 quantitative/semi-quantitative outcome measures [20,21,22,23,24] and 14 questionnaires measuring severity and/or impact of sialorrhea on patients’ quality of life [1, 6, 8, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Extensive description and explanation of each tool can be found in the Supplementary material.
Qualitative and quantitative features
The assessment tools differed in sialorrhea quantification methodology and purpose of assessment.
Sialorrhea was quantified by counting bibs changed daily [20], weighing bibs [21], collecting saliva with a cup [22], direct/standardised observation of sialorrhea episodes over a 5 to 10-min period [23, 24], and through subjective scales or questionnaires [1, 6, 8, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35].
The primary purpose of assessment was predictive for bib count [20] and bib weight [21], discriminative for the Modified drooling questionnaire [30], the 5-min Drooling Quotient (DQ5) [24], the Drooling Infants and Preschoolers Scale (DRIPS) [25], and the Blasco Index for the assessment of drooling [1], evaluative for all the others [6, 8, 22, 23, 26,27,28,29, 31, 33,34,35].
Responsiveness data were available only for the Drooling Impact Scale (DIS) [31] and the French version of the Drooling Impact Scale (DIS-F) [32], while other measures had been used in several clinical trials to measure longitudinal changes in sialorrhea after treatment. Data related to target population, sample size, and feasibility are listed in Table 2.
Among scales and questionnaires, there was an adequate feasibility for the DRIPS [25], which is self-administered and performed in 15 min, and for the Modified drooling questionnaire [30] that needs a mean administration time of 10 min. Administration time was reported also for the Teacher Drooling Scale (TDS) [27], requiring a full school day observation.
Validity and reliability
With regard to measurement properties, data for both reliability and validity were available for the DQ5 [24], the modified drooling questionnaire [30], the DIS [31], the French version of Drooling Impact Scale (DIS-F) [32], the Brazilian Portuguese language version of DIS [33], the TDS [27], the DQ [23], and the DRIPS [25]. The Drooling Impact Questionnaire (short version) [6, 36], the questionnaire to evaluate impact of drooling on daily living (questionnaires 1 and 2) [8], bib count [20], bib weight [21], the Drooling Severity and Frequency Scale (DSFS) [26], the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [29], and the Daniel Drooling Impact Score Questionnaire (DDISQ) [34], reported only data on validity. The remaining outcome measures did not have any measurement properties tested [1, 22, 28, 35]. The different aspects of reliability (i.e. Inter-rater, Intra-rater, test retest) and validity available for each sialorrhea measure are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Among instruments with validity and reliability data, the DQ5 [24] and the modified drooling questionnaire [30] had an overall positive score in terms of quantitative results and methodological quality. Specifically, for the DQ5 [24], most measurement properties in the checklist were rated positively with an overall score of ‘very good’. The 5-min Drooling Quotient during activities (DQ5A) was more discriminative for drooling severity than the 5-min Drooling Quotient at rest (DQ5R), with a cut-off point of 18 indicating a constant drooling. Criterion validity had been calculated for the DQ5, showing a positive strong correlation between the DQ5 [24] and the DQ [23]. For inter-rater reliability, the DQ5 showed a higher correlation between the scores of the observers.
The modified drooling questionnaire [30] was rated as ‘adequate’ in terms of content validity. Reliability was rated ‘very good’, as it showed a higher correlation between observers’ scores; a cut-off of 24 discriminates between mild and severe drooling.
For the DIS [31], the DIS-F [32], and the Brazilian Portuguese language version of DIS [33], although most items of measurement properties in the checklist were rated positively, the overall score was rated as ‘doubtful’, due to lack of clarity on how missing items were handled. For both TDS [27] and DQ [23], measurement analysis was considered unsatisfactory. The overall score given to the measurement properties tested in the DRIPS [25] ranged from ‘adequate’ to ‘very good’.
The quality scores using ‘worst score counts’ [14] criteria are reported in Table 5. Data on validity and responsiveness of studies are summarised in Table 3; data on reliability are summarised in Table 4.
Discussion
The paucity of reviews in the medical literature about sialorrhea measurements in children has not allowed a robust use of assessment tools by paediatric experts in disability. Our review has highlighted that although there is a wide range of approaches in the clinical practice to assess children’s saliva management, very few sialorrhea outcome measures are currently available to guide medical decision-making. Clinical evaluation of children with sialorrhea includes a thorough anamnestic collection and physical examination. Paediatric history should focus on age of sialorrhea onset, chronicity, precipitating factors, associated symptoms, developmental history, use of medications as well as family, perinatal history, or past pathologic data. Data acquisition can be expedited by questionnaire administration, resulting in multiple benefits. In fact, this is a reasonable and time-sparing procedure for clinicians to measure sialorrhea severity and its impact on both quality of life and routine daily life. It also allows planning intervention programs and periodically measure outcomes of each intervention. Questionnaire administration can also facilitate a comprehensive evaluation and improve clinician familiarity with sialorrhea assessment. The measures described in this review could be categorised in two main groups: the first aimed at discriminating children depending on severity of sialorrhea and the second aimed not only at evaluating severity, but also sialorrhea impact on children and parents’ lives. Moreover, treatment of sialorrhea can be considered effective not only if its severity decreases, but also if it lessens its impact on the caregiver and improves the child’s quality of life.
Among all assessment instruments that we analysed, only few of them have a description of psychometric properties. Nevertheless, some of the measures reporting their internal attributes can be properly used to assess sialorrhea. Specifically, the DIS [31], the DIS-F [32], and the modified drooling questionnaire [30] can be used as valid and reliable measures of drooling severity and social acceptability in children with developmental disabilities and CP dealing with sialorrhea. Moreover, the DIS [31] and the DIS-F [32] were the only evaluative tools with responsiveness data, being useful for detecting clinically important changes over time. Instead, the modified drooling questionnaire [30] can be used as a discriminative tool, and is also the first questionnaire validated in the Indian paediatric population with CP.
Furthermore, clinicians may undertake an accurate classification of sialorrhea through a quantitative measure: specifically, the physician can objectively assess sialorrhea frequency using the DQ5A in children with developmental disability and moderate-to-profuse sialorrhea [24]. Discriminative properties for the DQ5 in children with infrequent and slight drooling and population groups other than children with developmental disabilities have not been studied yet. Moreover, among questionnaires, the DRIPS [25] can be used by clinicians to monitor sialorrhea, due to the presence of charts created with a reference cohort of children with typical development.
The integration of patient-reported outcomes into clinical care is becoming a standard practice [37]. For children who drool, the subjective opinion of parents provides insight on drooling severity and its relevance, while quantitative methods can help to corroborate subjective findings. For these reasons and as previously reported by van Hulst et al. [24], sialorrhea evaluation should cover quantitative measures and parent or proxy reports in both clinical and research contexts.
Strengths and limitations
The present review provides insights into the current evidence on the available outcome measures of sialorrhea in children. It also describes important measurement properties that enable dedicated healthcare professionals to choose the best available outcome measure. Strength of this review is the use of a rigorous and stringent methodology. As suggested by the COSMIN checklist [12], the ‘‘worst score counts’’ principle [14] was used to obtain a methodological quality score for each measurement property. A poorer score on any item was considered to represent a fatal flaw. Publication bias is a frequent limitation in most systematic reviews: although many efforts were made to seize all studies, some potentially relevant studies might have been excluded. Specifically, language restriction was an important limitation because it led to the exclusion of a substantial number of potentially relevant studies.
Future research
Further studies investigating the properties of sialorrhea outcome measures are needed in order to obtain more robust data. Outcome measures should be also evaluated in different population groups. An electronic format of these same tools should be also provided, to obtain real-time data in case face-to-face consultations are not deliverable.
Conclusions
The measures included in this systematic review varied in the evaluation methods and domains assessed, and measurement properties were often not available. Our findings suggest that a combination of both quantitative measures and parent/proxy questionnaires might provide an adequate measurement of sialorrhea in children. Given the high rates of moderate and severe sialorrhea in different paediatric conditions with disability, the use of valid and reliable measures of sialorrhea might improve physicians’ confidence in its evaluation, support clinical decision-making, enhance efficacy of follow-up after treatments, and optimise research quality.
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Change history
18 July 2022
Missing Open Access funding information has been added in the Funding Note.
Abbreviations
- DDISQ:
-
Daniel Drooling Impact Score Questionnaire
- DIS:
-
Drooling Impact Scale
- DIS-F:
-
French version of Drooling Impact Scale
- DQ:
-
Drooling Quotient
- DQ5:
-
5-Minute Drooling Quotient
- DQ5A :
-
5-Minute Drooling Quotient during activities
- DQ5R :
-
5-Minute Drooling Quotient at rest
- DRIPS:
-
Drooling Infants and Preschoolers Scale
- DSFS:
-
Drooling Severity and Frequency Scale
- TDS:
-
Teacher Drooling Scale
- VAS:
-
Visual Analogue Scale
References
Blasco PA, Allaire JH (1992) Drooling in the developmentally disabled: management practices and recommendations. Dev Med Child Neurol 34:849–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1992.tb11382.x
Poling A, Miller K, Nelson N, Ryan C (1978) Reduction of undesired classroom behavior by systematically reinforcing the absence of such behavior. Educ Treat Child 1(3):35–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42898421. Accessed 1 July 2021
Lancioni GE, Coninx F, Manders N, Driessen M (1989) Use of automatic cueing to reduce drooling in two multihandicapped students. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person 2:201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90008-6
Brodsky L (1993) Drooling in children. In: Arvedson JC, Brodsky L (eds) Pediatric Swallowing and Feeding. Singular Publishing Group, San Diego, pp 389–416
Kay S, Harchik AE, Luiselli JK (2006) Elimination of drooling by an adolescent student with autism attending public high school. J Posit Behav Interv 8:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007060080010401
van der Burg JW, Didden R, Engbers N, Jongerius PH, Rotteveel JJ (2009) Self-management treatment of drooling: a case series. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 43:106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.05.001
Zeller R, Lee HM, Cavanaugh PF, Davidson J (2012) Randomized Phase III evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a novel glycopyrrolate oral solution for the management of chronic severe drooling in children with cerebral palsy or other neurologic conditions. Ther Clin Risk Manag 8:15–23. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S26893
van der Burg JJ, Jongerius PH, Van Hulst K, Van Limbeek J, Rotteveel JJ (2006) Drooling in children with cerebral palsy: a qualitative method to evaluate parental perceptions of its impact on daily life, social interaction, and self-esteem. Int J Rehabil Res 29(2):179–182. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mrr.0000194395.64396.f1
Parr JR, Buswell CA, Banerjee K, Fairhurst C, Williams J, O'Hare A, Pennington L (2012) British Academy of Childhood Disability Drooling Study Development Group. Management of drooling in children: a survey of UK paediatricians' clinical practice. Child Care Health Dev 38(2):287–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01213.x
Porte M, Chaléat-Valayer E, Patte K, D’Anjou MC, Boulay C, Laffont I (2014) Relevance of intraglandular injections of Botulinum toxin for the treatment of sialorrhea in children with cerebral palsy: a review. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 18(6):649–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2014.05.007
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB (2019) COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measures instruments. https://www.cosmin.nl. Accessed 15 July 2021
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL et al (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21:651–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1
Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC et al (2018) COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27:1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4
Seager A, French H, Meldrum D (2019) Measurement properties of instruments for assessment of cervical spine function in infants with torticollis: a systematic review. Eur J Pediatr 178:657–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03338-3
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
de Yébenes G, Prous MA, Rodríguez Salvanés F, Carmona Ortells L (2009) Validación de cuestionarios [Validation of questionnaires]. Reumatologia Clinica 5(4):171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reuma.2008.09.007
Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38(1):27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0
Chen T, Daniel SJ (2021) Is bib count an accurate quantitative measure of drooling? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 143(12):110657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110657
Senner JE, Logemann J, Zecker S, Gaebler-Spira D (2004) Drooling, saliva production, and swallowing in cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 46(12):801–806. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162204001409
Sochaniwskyj AE (1982) Drool quantification: non invasive technique. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 63(12):605–607 (PMID: 7149944)
Rapp D (1988) Management of drooling. Dev Med Child Neurol 30:128–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1988.tb04738.x
van Hulst K, Lindeboom R, van der Burg J, Jongerius PH (2012) Accurate assessment of drooling severity with the 5-minute drooling quotient in children with developmental disabilities. Dev Med Child Neurol 54:1121–1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04428.x
van Hulst K, van den Engel-Hoek L, Geurts ACH et al (2018) Development of the Drooling Infants and Preschoolers Scale (DRIPS) and reference charts for monitoring saliva control in children aged 0–4 years. Infant Behavior Development 50:247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2018.01.004
Thomas-Stonell N, Greenberg J (1988) Three treatment approaches and clinical factors in the reduction of drooling. Dysphagia 3:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02412423
Camp-Bruno JA, Winsberg BG, Green-Parsons AR, Abrams JP (1989) Efficacy of benztropine therapy for drooling. Dev Med Child Neurol 31(3):309–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb04000.x
Mier RJ, Bachrach SJ, Lakin RC, Barker T, Childs J, Moran M (2000) Treatment of sialorrhea with glycopyrrolate: a double-blind, dose-ranging study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154(12):1214–1218. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.154.12.1214
Jongerius PH, van den Hoogen FJA, van Limbeek J, Gabreels FJ, van Hulst K, Rotteveel JJ (2004) Effect of botulinum toxin in the treatment of drooling: a controlled clinical trial. Pediatrics 114(3):620–627. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2003-1104-L
Job A, Naina P, Syed KA, Thomas M, John M, Varghese AM (2018) Validation of a drooling questionnaire in Indian children with cerebral palsy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 112:55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.06.029
Reid SM, Johnson HM, Reddihough DS (2010) The Drooling Impact Scale: a measure of the impact of drooling in children with developmental disabilities. Dev Med Child Neurol 52(2):23–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03519.x
Bard-Pondarré R, Roumenoff F, Julien C et al (2020) Validity, reliability and responsiveness to change of the French version of the drooling impact scale. Disabil Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1777471
Cavalcanti NS, Sekine L, Manica D, Farenzena M, Saleh Neto CS, Marostica PJ et al (2020) Translation and validation of the drooling impact scale questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.09.003
Daniel SJ (2020) Salivary gland ductal diversion, botulinum toxin injection, and salivary ductal ligation. In: Fliss D, DeRowe A (ed) Atlas of Pediatric Head & Neck and Skull Base Surgery. Thieme Medical
Suskind DL, Tilton A (2002) Clinical study of botulinum-A toxin in the treatment of sialorrhea in children with cerebral palsy. Laryngoscope 112(1):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200201000-00014
Kok SE, van der Burg JJ, van Hulst K, Erasmus CE, van den Hoogen FJ (2006) The impact of submandibular duct relocation on drooling and the well-being of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 88:173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.06.043
Quittner A, Nicolais CJ, Saez-Flores E (2018) Integrating patient-reported outcomes into research and clinical practice. In: Kendig's Disorders of the Respiratory Tract in Children, 9th edn. Elsevier Inc., pp 231–240 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-44887-1.00013-4
Rashnoo P, Daniel SJ (2015) Drooling quantification: correlation of different techniques. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79(8):1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.05.010
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F et al (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191
Mato A, Limeres J, Tomás I et al (2010) Management of drooling in disabled patients with scopolamine patches. Br J Clin Pharmacol 69(6):684–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03659
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Elizabeth Katherine Triumbari (Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS) for her support in language editing.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study concept and design: ES, RO, and GZ. Acquisition of data: ES and RO. Analysis and interpretation of data: ES and RO. Drafting the manuscript: ES and RO. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: DR. Conceptualization and editing of the manuscript: GZ, FP, AC, AS, FN, VG, CL, and EMC. All authors contributed to the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no competing interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Gregorio Paolo Milani
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sforza, E., Onesimo, R., Leoni, C. et al. Drooling outcome measures in paediatric disability: a systematic review. Eur J Pediatr 181, 2575–2592 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-022-04460-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-022-04460-5