↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for treating burning mouth syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
72 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Interventions for treating burning mouth syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002779.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roddy McMillan, Heli Forssell, John AG Buchanan, Anne-Marie Glenny, Jo C Weldon, Joanna M Zakrzewska

Abstract

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a term used for oral mucosal pain (burning pain or discomfort in the tongue, lips or entire oral cavity) without identifiable cause. General population prevalence varies from 0.1% to 3.9%. Many BMS patients indicate anxiety, depression, personality disorders and impaired quality of life (QoL). This review updates the previous versions published in 2000 and 2005. To determine the effectiveness and safety of any intervention versus placebo for symptom relief and changes in QoL, taste, and feeling of dryness in people with BMS. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 31 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 31 December 2015), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 December 2015), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 December 2015). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any treatment against placebo in people with BMS. The primary outcomes were symptom relief (pain/burning) and change in QoL. Secondary outcomes included change in taste, feeling of dryness, and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcome data were analysed as short-term (up to three months) or long-term (three to six months). We included 23 RCTs (1121 analysed participants; 83% female). Interventions were categorised as: antidepressants and antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, cholinergics, dietary supplements, electromagnetic radiation, physical barriers, psychological therapies, and topical treatments.Only one RCT was assessed at low risk of bias overall, four RCTs' risk of bias was unclear, and 18 studies were at high risk of bias. Overall quality of the evidence for effectiveness was very low for all interventions and all outcomes.Twenty-one RCTs assessed short-term symptom relief. There is very low-quality evidence of benefit from electromagnetic radiation (one RCT, 58 participants), topical benzodiazepines (two RCTs, 111 participants), physical barriers (one RCT, 50 participants), and anticonvulsants (one RCT, 100 participants). We found insufficient/contradictory evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants, cholinergics, systemic benzodiazepines, dietary supplements or topical treatments. No RCT assessing psychological therapies evaluated short-term symptom relief.Four studies assessed long-term symptom relief. There is very low-quality evidence of a benefit from psychological therapies (one RCT, 30 participants), capsaicin oral rinse (topical treatment) (one RCT, 18 participants), and topical benzodiazepines (one RCT, 66 participants). We found no evidence of a difference for dietary supplements or lactoperoxidase oral rinse. No studies assessing antidepressants, anticonvulsants, cholinergics, electromagnetic radiation or physical barriers evaluated long-term symptom relief.Short-term change in QoL was assessed by seven studies (none long-term).The quality of evidence was very low. A benefit was found for electromagnetic radiation (one RCT, 58 participants), however findings were inconclusive for antidepressants, benzodiazepines, dietary supplements and physical barriers.Secondary outcomes (change in taste and feeling of dryness) were only assessed short-term, and the findings for both were also inconclusive.With regard to adverse effects, there is very low-quality evidence that antidepressants increase dizziness and drowsiness (one RCT, 37 participants), and that alpha lipoic acid increased headache (two RCTs, 118 participants) and gastrointestinal complaints (3 RCTs, 138 participants). We found insufficient/contradictory evidence regarding adverse events for anticonvulsants or benzodiazepines. Adverse events were poorly reported or unreported for cholinergics, electromagnetic radiation, and psychological therapies. No adverse events occurred from physical barriers or topical therapy use. Given BMS' potentially disabling nature, the need to identify effective modes of treatment for sufferers is vital. Due to the limited number of clinical trials at low risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any interventions in managing BMS. Further clinical trials, with improved methodology and standardised outcome sets are required in order to establish which treatments are effective. Future studies are encouraged to assess the role of treatments used in other neuropathic pain conditions and psychological therapies in the treatment of BMS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 178 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 23%
Researcher 30 17%
Unspecified 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 45%
Unspecified 34 19%
Psychology 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 31 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 18 July 2019.
All research outputs
#289,775
of 13,635,031 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#749
of 10,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,213
of 377,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,635,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 377,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.