Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39346282›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024

Evaluating the Efficacy of Two Pharmaceutical Therapies for Burning Mouth Syndrome.

Khalil Ibrahim Assiri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Khalil Ibrahim AssiriBDS, MDS, American Board of Orofacial Pain, Associate Professor, Department of Diagnostic Sciences and Oral Biology, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain disorder characterized by a persistent burning sensation in the oral cavity, affecting quality of life significantly. Pharmacological therapy is commonly employed in the management of BMS, but the comparative efficacy of different pharmaceutical agents remains uncertain. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted involving 80 participants diagnosed with BMS, randomly assigned to two treatment groups: Group A received tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), while Group B received anticonvulsants. Baseline assessments of pain intensity, oral health-related quality of life, and psychological distress were conducted using standardized measures. Treatment outcomes were evaluated at 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), while oral health-related quality of life and psychological distress were measured using validated questionnaires. Results: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain intensity, oral health-related quality of life, and psychological distress compared to baseline. At the 6-month follow-up, Group A (TCAs) showed a mean reduction of 70% in pain intensity from baseline, whereas Group B (anticonvulsants) exhibited a mean reduction of 65%. The difference in pain reduction between the two groups was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: TCAs and anticonvulsants are both effective pharmaceutical therapies for managing BMS, resulting in significant improvements in pain intensity, oral health-related quality of life, and psychological distress.

Indexed as

Anticonvulsantsburning mouth syndromepain managementpharmaceutical therapytricyclic antidepressants

Identifiers

PMID39346282
PMCPMC11426593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.