↓ Skip to main content

Therapeutic Options in Idiopathic Burning Mouth Syndrome: Literature Review

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Therapeutic Options in Idiopathic Burning Mouth Syndrome: Literature Review
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, July 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1378138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivan Miziara, Azis Chagury, Camila Vargas, Ludmila Freitas, Ali Mahmoud

Abstract

Introduction Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is characterized by a burning sensation in the tongue, palate, lips, or gums of no well-defined etiology. The diagnosis and treatment for primary BMS are controversial. No specific laboratory tests or diagnostic criteria are well established, and the diagnosis is made by excluding all other possible disorders. Objective To review the literature on the main treatment options in idiopathic BMS and compare the best results of the main studies in 15 years. Data Synthesis We conducted a literature review on PubMed/MEDLINE, SciELO, and Cochrane-BIREME of work in the past 15 years, and only selected studies comparing different therapeutic options in idiopathic BMS, with preference for randomized and double-blind controlled studies. Final Comments Topical clonazepam showed good short-term results for the relief of pain, although this was not presented as a definitive cure. Similarly, α-lipoic acid showed good results, but there are few randomized controlled studies that showed the long-term results and complete remission of symptoms. On the other hand, cognitive therapy is reported as a good and lasting therapeutic option with the advantage of not having side effects, and it can be combined with pharmacologic therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,409,030
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#223
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,779
of 226,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 226,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.