Question · asked by 1 review
Zinc vs placebo: Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - individual taste sensations
- Population
- Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)
- Intervention
- Zinc
- Comparison
- placebo
- Outcome
- Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - individual taste sensations
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… showed no clear difference in taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) -… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.
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 acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - individual taste sensations · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal… · Chronic renal failure Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… showed no clear difference in taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) -… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported. Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | Results (Mahajan 1980, chronic renal failure; Analysis 1.3): mean difference by taste sensation - salt MD 285 (95% CI 238.75 to 331.25); sweet MD 190 (142.36 to 237.64); sour MD 10 (-16.43 to 36.43); bitter MD 2.40… | 1 study · 22 participants | 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.