4.6 Review

Worldwide prevalence estimates of burning mouth syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 1431-1440

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13868

关键词

burning mouth syndrome; epidemiology; meta‐ analysis; prevalence

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81570985]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burning mouth syndrome has a relatively high prevalence worldwide, with the highest prevalence in Europe. Females and individuals over 50 years old are more susceptible to this syndrome. Additional epidemiological surveys are needed to further understand the prevalence of burning mouth syndrome.
Objectives To evaluate the worldwide prevalence and epidemiology profile of burning mouth syndrome. Material and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Search strategies were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database for studies published before January 31, 2021, for the prevalence of burning mouth syndrome. Results Eighteen articles were included. The overall pooled prevalence of burning mouth syndrome was 1.73% (95% CI = 0.176-0.351, n = 26,632) in general population, and 7.72% (95% CI = 0.434-0.691, n = 86,591) in clinical patients. The subgroup analysis by continent showed that among the population-based studies the prevalence in Asia (1.05%) lower than in Europe (5.58%) and North America (1.10%). The subgroup analysis by gender showed the prevalence of female (1.15%) was higher than male (0.38%) in general population. The subgroup analysis by age showed the prevalence was higher for people over 50 (3.31%) than under 50 (1.92%). Conclusions The pooled prevalence of burning mouth syndrome was relatively high in both general population and clinical patients, varies in different regions with the highest prevalence in Europe, and females over 50 years were the most susceptible group. More epidemiological surveys on the prevalence of burning mouth syndrome are needed.

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