ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Evaluating the Efficacy of Two Pharmaceutical Therapies for Burning Mouth Syndrome.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.