Question · asked by 1 review
Zinc vs placebo: Health‐related quality of life
- Population
- Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)
- Intervention
- Zinc
- Comparison
- placebo
- Outcome
- Health‐related quality of life
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate, zinc acetate, or polaprezinc) vs Placebo Health-related quality of life · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal… Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | Results (health-related quality of life): None of the studies reported data on health-related quality of life. Heckmann 2005 (zinc) reported that signs of depression were less severe (Beck Depression Inventory P<0.05;… | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate, zinc acetate, or polaprezinc) vs Placebo Health-related quality of life · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal… Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010470.PUB2, superseded | Results (health-related quality of life): Heckmann 2005 (zinc) reported that signs of depression in the zinc group were less severe (Beck Depression Inventory P<0.05; mood scale P<0.05), independent of serum/saliva… | 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.