Premium
Psychophysical characterisation of burning mouth syndrome—A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Madariaga Víctor I.,
Tanaka Hirokazu,
Ernberg Malin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.13028
Subject(s) - quantitative sensory testing , cochrane library , meta analysis , burning mouth syndrome , medicine , medline , systematic review , psychophysics , audiology , sensory system , neuropathic pain , web of science , clinical psychology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , psychology , cognitive psychology , neuroscience , anesthesia , perception , political science , law
Abstract Background Primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is an oro‐facial disease with neuropathic characteristics. Psychophysics, such as quantitative sensory testing (QST), is used to sub‐classify neuropathic pain syndromes, but their usefulness in characterising BMS is not yet clear. Objective The aim of this study was to summarise and to quantitatively and qualitatively analyse the available information about QST findings in BMS, and to reflect on possible mechanisms of disease. Methods In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, different search strategies were used to screen for articles in PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and two sources of conference abstracts. Primary clinical studies focused on QST assessment in patients with BMS were included. Data were synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively. Risk of bias was assessed following the AHRQ guidelines. Results Thirteen articles with low to moderate risk of bias and one conference abstract were selected from 45 unique articles that were identified. Individually, the studies reported combinations of thermal and mechanical sensory impairments measured by QST. The meta‐analysis showed significant sensory differences between patients and controls in warmth (effect size = 0.683; P < .05) and cold detection thresholds (effect size = −0.580; P < .001). Conclusion The results indicate that thermal sensitivity seems to be altered in patients with BMS compared to controls, suggesting a small‐fibre neuropathy. However, study protocols were highly variable and heterogeneous. Therefore, studies with better designs and complete reporting of results should be performed to bring value to the use of psychophysics in the assessment of BMS.