Zinc vs placebo: Adverse events
It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes adverse events compared with placebo (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate, zinc acetate, or polaprezinc) vs Placebo Adverse events · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal… · 12 to 18 weeks It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes adverse events compared with placebo (very low certainty). Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 5.20 [0.90, 30.19] | 3 studies · 335 participants | Very low |
Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate, zinc acetate, or polaprezinc) vs Placebo Adverse events · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal… · Mean 3 months Zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… may leads to higher adverse events compared with placebo (low certainty). Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD010470.PUB2, superseded | RR 6.21 [1.12, 34.37] | 3 studies · 335 participants | Low |
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 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.