ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Psychological Subtypes and Intervention Strategies in Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a complex chronic orofacial pain condition characterized by a multifactorial etiology and poorly understood pathophysiology. Conventional monotherapies often have limited efficacy, necessitating a transition toward personalized management. Accordingly, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published up to January 2026 using keywords related to BMS. Following screening, we synthesized the available evidence to propose a psychological classification framework for BMS, identifying four distinct subtypes: emotion-dominant, stressor-related, cognitive-distortion, and personality-based. These four subtypes were derived from a synthesis of existing literature on BMS comorbidities and clinical heterogeneity, providing potential insights for clinical practice. We delineated the core clinical features and putative neurobiological mechanisms and validated the psychometric assessment tools corresponding to each phenotype. We also evaluated evidence-based interventions tailored to these psychological profiles. Current evidence supports cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as a well-supported first-line intervention for emotional- and personality-based dimensions, biofeedback for stressor-related symptoms, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) for addressing cognitive distortions. We posit that a stratified, integrated therapeutic strategy grounded in rigorous psychological subtyping can address the limitations of traditional "one-size-fits-all" approaches, thereby potentially helping to guide individualized treatment strategies and improve clinical outcomes, pending prospective validation. Future research should prioritize the clinical validation and feasibility of this precision-oriented paradigm to establish a new standard of care for patients with BMS.
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.