4.6 Article

A Population-Based Study of the Incidence of Burning Mouth Syndrome

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 89, 期 11, 页码 1545-1552

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.05.018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rochester Epidemiology Project [R01-AG034676]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To calculate the incidence of burning mouth syndrome (BMS) in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 2000 through 2010. Patients and Methods: By using the medical record linkage system of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, we identified newly diagnosed cases of BMS from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2010. Diagnoses were confirmed through the presence of burning pain symptoms of the oral mucosa with normal oral examination findings and no associated clinical signs. Incidence was estimated using decennial census data for Olmsted County. Results: In total, 169 incident cases were identified, representing an annual age-and sex-adjusted incidence of BMS of 11.4 per 100,000 person-years. Age-adjusted incidence was significantly higher in women than in men (18.8 [95% CI, 16.4-22.9] per 100,000 person-years vs 3.7 [95% CI, 2.6-5.7] per 100,000 person-years; P<.001). Postmenopausal women aged 50 to 8(years had the highest incidence of the disease, with the maximal rate observed in women aged 70 to 79 years (70.3 per 100,000 person-years). After the age of 50 years, the incidence of BMS in men and women significantly increased across age groups (P=.02). Study participants residing in Olmsted County, Minnesota, were predominantly white, which is a study limitation. In addition, diagnostic criteria for identifying BMS in the present study may not apply for all situations because no diagnostic criteria are universally recognized for identifying BMS. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first population-based incidence study of BMS reported to date. The data reveal that BMS is an uncommon disease highly associated with female sex and advancing age. (C) 2014 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据