Question · asked by 1 review
Acupuncture vs sham control: Taste discrimination improvement
- Population
- Patients with idiopathic dysgeusia and hypogeusia
- Intervention
- Acupuncture
- Comparison
- sham control
- Outcome
- Taste discrimination improvement
It is very uncertain whether acupuncture changes taste discrimination improvement compared with sham control (deactivated laser sham acupuncture) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 1 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 50%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Acupuncture vs Sham control (deactivated laser sham acupuncture) Taste discrimination improvement · Patients with idiopathic dysgeusia and hypogeusia · 8 weeks It is very uncertain whether acupuncture changes taste discrimination improvement compared with sham control (deactivated laser sham acupuncture) (very low certainty). Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 2.80 [-1.18, 6.78] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low |
Acupuncture vs Sham control (deactivated laser sham acupuncture) Taste acuity improvement · Patients with idiopathic dysgeusia and hypogeusia The review found no eligible studies for this question. Interventions for managing taste disturbances (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | Results: There were no data on taste acuity improvement in the included acupuncture trial (Brandt 2008). | 0 studies | No studies found |
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.