| Title |
Treatment modalities for burning mouth syndrome: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-018-2454-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isadora Follak de Souza, Belkiss Câmara Mármora, Pantelis Varvaki Rados, Fernanda Visioli |
| Abstract |
In the burning mouth syndrome (BMS), patients experience a burning sensation in the oral cavity with no associated injury or clinical manifestation. The etiology of this condition is still poorly understood, and therefore, treatment is challenging. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of treatment possibilities described in the literature for BMS. PubMed, Embase, and SciELO databases were searched for randomized clinical trials published between 1996 and 2016. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 29 papers were analyzed and divided into five subcategories according to the type of treatment described: antidepressants, alpha-lipoic acid, phytotherapeutic agents, analgesic and anti-inflammatory agents, and non-pharmacological therapies. In each category, the results found were compared with regard to the methodology employed, sample size, assessment method, presence or absence of adverse effects, and treatment outcomes. The analysis revealed that the use of antidepressants and alpha-lipoic acid has been showing promising results; however, more studies are necessary before we can have a first-line treatment strategy for patients with BMS. To review systematically the literature about Burning Mouth Syndrome treatment may aid the clinicians to choose the treatment modality to improve patients symptoms based on the best evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 27% |
| Unknown | 16 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 54% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,277,395
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#314
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,738
of 340,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 340,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.