Question · asked by 1 review
Zinc vs placebo: Taste discrimination improvement
- Population
- Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)
- Intervention
- Zinc
- Comparison
- placebo
- Outcome
- Taste discrimination improvement
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate, zinc acetate, or polaprezinc) vs Placebo Taste discrimination improvement · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal… Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | Results: Matson 2003 used zinc sulphate for testing taste discrimination (sip and spit method); the trial did not report the details of the placebo group and thus the results could not be meta-analysed. Not GRADE-rated. | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-07 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.