ArticleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2025
Exploration of a pain assessment tool on burning mouth syndrome.
Article in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychological Subtypes and Intervention Strategies in Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBurning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic orofacial pain disorder. The etiology and pathophysiology of BMS remain unclear; multiple factors may interact in complex ways. There is a need for simpler and more cost-effective BMS evaluation criteria. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2 (SF-MPQ-2) in patients with BMS and develop a subscale based on factor analysis of the results to classify patients per their symptoms.
methodsSeveral factors such as patient characteristics (age, sex, smoking habit, and medical history), the SF-MPQ-2 (original: eleven-point rating scale and modified: four-point rating scale), and the numerical rating scale (NRS) of BMS were examined and analyzed.
resultsIn total, 38 patients were enrolled. Cronbach's alpha was 0.93 (0.88-0.96) and 0.83 (0.74-0.90) for the SF-MPQ-2 (original) and SF-MPQ-2 (Modified), respectively. Only the correlation between the NRS and the SF-MPQ-2 (Modified) reached statistical significance. These results showed that the SF-MPQ-2 (Modified) were more reliable than the SF-MPQ-2 (Original). Factor analysis led to classification into three new factors.
conclusionsSF-MPQ-2 was useful for BMS. In current clinical practice, the modified questionnaire may yield similar or better results, and a more precise treatment strategy can be pursued by classifying responses according to the proposed subscales and examining treatment effects.
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.