Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

20 questions · 20 findings · 3 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 10%GRADE not reported 12 · 60%Very low 6 · 30%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Salivary flow rate · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No data on salivary flow rates were reported.
0 studies
No studies found

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Side effects · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No data on adverse events were reported.
0 studies
No studies found

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Survival · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Tumour response by RECIST criteria reported for a specific group of patients only; no usable survival data (Watanabe 2010)
1 study
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Taste disturbance (severe, > 2 on 0-3 scale) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Polaprezinc led to lower taste disturbance (severe, > 2 on 0-3 scale) compared with azulene oral rinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Over RT period
RR 0.12 [0.02, 0.83]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Xerostomia (severe) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Polaprezinc led to lower xerostomia (severe) compared with azulene oral rinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of RT
RR 0.17 [0.04, 0.65]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Oral pain · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Polaprezinc led to lower oral pain (severe, > 2 on 0-3 scale) compared with azulene oral rinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Over RT period
RR 0.36 [0.17, 0.77]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Disability of oral intake · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Polaprezinc showed no clear difference in disability of oral intake compared with azulene oral rinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Over RT period
RR 0.31 [0.07, 1.31]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Polaprezinc led to lower oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with azulene; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.43 [0.22, 0.84]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Polaprezinc showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with azulene; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.82 [0.63, 1.06]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Polaprezinc vs Azulene

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Polaprezinc led to lower oral mucositis (severe) compared with azulene; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.09 [0.01, 0.65]
1 study · 31 participants
GRADE not reported

Zinc vs placebo

Taste discrimination improvement · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Results: Matson 2003 used zinc sulphate for testing taste discrimination (sip and spit method); the trial did not report the details of the placebo group and thus the results could not be meta-analysed. Not GRADE-rated.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - individual taste sensations · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to 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.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Chronic renal failure
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

Zinc vs placebo

Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - taste detection (cross-over trial) · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - taste… compared with placebo (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months · Children with chronic renal failure
MD 2.50 [0.93, 4.07]
1 study · 14 participants
Very low

Zinc vs placebo

Taste acuity improvement - patient-reported outcome · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes taste acuity improvement - patient-reported outcome compared with placebo (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Mean 3 months · Zinc-deficient/idiopathic taste disorder
RR 1.40 [0.94, 2.09]
2 studies · 119 participants
Very low

Zinc vs placebo

Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous) - taste recognition (cross-over trial) · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months · Children with chronic renal failure
MD 3.00 [0.66, 5.34]
1 study · 14 participants
Very low

Zinc vs placebo

Health‐related quality of life · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Results (health-related quality of life): None of the studies reported data on health-related quality of life. Heckmann 2005 (zinc) reported that signs of depression were less severe (Beck Depression Inventory P<0.05;…
1 study
GRADE not reported

Zinc 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 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.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Chronic renal failure
RR 25 [1.65, 379.57]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported

Zinc vs placebo

Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous data) · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (continuous data) compared with placebo (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Mean 3 months · Idiopathic dysgeusia
SMD 0.44 [0.23, 0.65]
3 studies · 366 participants
Very low

Zinc vs placebo

Adverse events · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes adverse events compared with placebo (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 to 18 weeks
RR 5.20 [0.90, 30.19]
3 studies · 335 participants
Very low

Zinc vs placebo

Taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous data) · Patients with taste disturbances (dysgeusia/hypogeusia; idiopathic, zinc-deficient, or secondary to chronic renal failure)

It is very uncertain whether zinc supplements (zinc sulphate, zinc gluconate, zinc picolinate,… changes taste acuity improvement - objective outcome (dichotomous data) compared with placebo (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for managing taste disturbances 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Mean 3 months · Idiopathic/zinc-deficient taste disorder
RR 1.42 [1.09, 1.84]
2 studies · 292 participants
Very low