Question · asked by 1 review
Zinc vs placebo: Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous) - chronic renal failure
- 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 (dichotomous) - chronic renal failure
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… led to higher taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous) - chronic… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.
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 Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous) - chronic renal failure · 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,… led to higher taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous) - chronic… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported. Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 25 [1.65, 379.57] | 1 study · 24 participants | GRADE not reported |
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate, zinc acetate, or polaprezinc) vs Placebo Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous) - chronic renal failure · 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,… led to higher taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous) - chronic… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported. Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010470.PUB2, superseded | RR 25 [1.65, 379.57] | 1 study · 24 participants | GRADE not reported |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.