ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Impact of Different Treatments on the Quality of Life in Patients With Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of topically applied liquid N-acetylcysteine for the management of burning mouth syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Psychoneurobiological Aspects of Burning Mouth Syndrome and Oral Lichen Planus: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Potential Target Receptors for the Pharmacotherapy of Burning Mouth Syndrome.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The profound impact of burning mouth syndrome (BMS) on patients' quality of life (QoL) highlights the critical need to identify effective treatments for this condition. This study aims to evaluate and compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among individuals diagnosed with BMS, focusing on different treatment modalities. For that purpose, a scoping review was designed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for scoping review reporting guidelines and the registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). An electronic search was then conducted in March 2024, encompassing the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Trip Database. Publications were deemed eligible if they assessed the impact of different treatments for BMS on health-related and oral health-related QoL. Out of the initial 5400, only 13 studies were considered suitable to be included in this review. The instrument used to evaluate HRQoL was the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). For OHRQoL, the preferred tools were the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI). Literature reported improvements in patients' HRQoL across the majority of analyzed treatment modalities. However, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and n-acetylcysteine (NAC) plus clonazepam were the most effective in improving OHRQoL. This review highlights several promising treatment options for improving both HRQoL and OHRQoL in individuals with BMS. Nevertheless, the variability among the studies analyzed underscores the need for further research to identify and establish consistently effective treatments for this condition, reflecting the need for consistent trial designs to accurately assess the true impact of treatments on the disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.