# Development and Proposal of a Novel Scoring System to Classify Dry Month Severity
## 3 Results
### Distribution, Sensitivity, Specificity and Reliability of DMSS  
As each result above cut-off values (below for UWS and SWS) for each parameter generated one point with a maximum total value of five possible points, most patients gained two points or more (85%), while none in the control group gained more than two points, as seen in Table 5. When the DMSS was calculated (scores 0-3), the patients were represented with all scores, with the highest score of 3 being the most frequent (43%). In contrast, the controls were represented with only the two lowest scores, with 0 being the most frequent score (78%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Patients (\(\boldsymbol{n}\) = 131)** & **Controls (\(\boldsymbol{n}\) = 59)** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\)**-Value** \\ \hline Age (years) & 52 \(\pm\) 15 & 51 \(\pm\) 17 & 0.438 \\ \hline Gender & & & 0.192 \\ \hline Male & 26 (20\%) & 17 (29\%) & \\ \hline Female & 105 (80\%) & 42 (71\%) & \\ \hline Ethnicity & & & 0.056 \\ \hline Scandinavian & 119 (91\%) & 49 (83\%) & \\ \hline European & 8 (6\%) & 6 (10\%) & \\ \hline Other & 4 (3\%) & 4 (7\%) & \\ \hline Educational level & & & 0.029 * \\ \hline Basic (7–10 years) & 9 (7\%) & 2 (3\%) & \\ \hline Secondary (10–13 years) & 39 (30\%) a  & 6 (10\%) & \\ \hline Higher (>13 years) & 83 (63\%) a  & 51 (86\%) & \\ \hline Occupation & & & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline Working & 56 (43\%) b  & 41 (69\%) & \\ \hline Sick leave/rehabilitation/disabled & 40 (31\%) b,c  & 1 (2\%) & \\ \hline Unemployed & 8 (6\%) e  & 1 (2\%) & \\ \hline Student & 3 (2\%) c,d,e  & 8 (14\%) & \\ \hline Retired & 24 (18\%) d  & 8 (14\%) & \\ \hline Smoking status & 16 (12\%) & 1 (2\%) & 0.025 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05. Intergroup difference (\(p<\) 0.05). a = secondary vs. higher \(p\) = 0.005, b = working vs. sick leave \(p<\) 0.001, c = sick leave vs. student \(p<\) 0.001, d = retired vs. student \(p=\) 0.016, e = student vs. unemployed \(p=\) 0.016.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Demographic data and characteristics of the patients and controls. Values are presented as the mean \(\pm\) SD or number (percent) of participants. The distribution of the mean values of GXQ, SXI and CODS showed a clearly ascending gradient and a descending gradient in the means of UWS and SWS across the scores of the DMSS, as shown in Figure 3.  
An ascending distribution across the scores of DMSS was seen when the number of patients presenting with results above cut-off values (below for UWS and SWS) were plotted against the DMSS results, as seen in Figure 4.  
The sensitivity and specificity of the DMSS were 0.93 and 0.78, respectively. The [PERSON]'s alpha coefficient was 0.74 for the included parameters in DMSS and 0.80 for the binary outcomes of the parameters (values above the cut-off for GXQ, SXI and CODS, and values below the cut-off for UWS and SWS). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline
**DMSS Parameter** & **Patients** & **Controls** & **\(p\)-Value** \\  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline GXQ & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline SXI & 11.7 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.9 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline CODS & 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 1.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline UWS & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.18 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline SWS & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 1.70 \(\pm\) 0.76 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Patients \(n\) (\%)**} & **Controls \(n\) (\%)**} & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline GXQ \(\geq\) 2 & 103 (79\%) & 0 & \\ \hline SXI \(\geq\) 11 & 93 (71\%) & 0 & \\ \hline CODS \(\geq\) 6 & 65 (50\%) & 1 (2\%) & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline UWS \(\leq\) 0.1 mL/min & 85 (65\%) & 13 (21\%) & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline SWS \(\leq\) 0.7 mL/min & 57 (44\%) & 3 (5\%) & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{l}{\({}^{*}p\)-value \(<\) 0.05.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results from the Dry Mouth Severity Score parameters and cut-off values for patients and controls.