Question · asked by 1 review
Dietary supplements (hypericum perforatum / St John's Wort) vs placebo: QoL
- Population
- People with primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS), that is, oral mucosal pain with no dental or medical cause for such symptoms
- Intervention
- Dietary supplements (hypericum perforatum / St John's Wort)
- Comparison
- placebo
- Outcome
- QoL
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Dietary supplements (hypericum perforatum / St John's Wort) vs Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL) · People with primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS), that is, oral mucosal pain with no dental or medical cause for such… · short-term (up to 3 months), hypericum perforatum Interventions for treating burning mouth syndrome (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | Sardella 2008 (43 participants) evaluated QoL from patient self-reports and narratively indicated that both intervention and placebo participants were better able to cope at trial completion. | 1 study · 43 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 treating burning mouth syndrome 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2015-12 | 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.