| Literature DB >> 31258565 |
Asma Hayat Khan1, Jawad Safdar2, Saad Uddin Siddiqui3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To observe the efficacy of zinc sulfate on taste alterations in oral cancer patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: AEMC = Atomic Energy Medical Centre; CCRT = Concurrent chemoradiotherapy; Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT); DT = Detection threshold; Oral cancer; RT = Recognition threshold; Taste acuity; Zinc sulfate
Year: 2019 PMID: 31258565 PMCID: PMC6572971 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.35.3.503
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pak J Med Sci ISSN: 1681-715X Impact factor: 1.088
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients in zinc and control group.
| Placebo | Zinc | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n=34 (%) | n=34 (%) | ||
| Mean ± SD | 46.03±9.22 | 43.44±12.01 | 0.323 |
| Mean ± SD | 60.38±15.01 | 58.88±12.35 | 0.654 |
| Male | 23(67.6) | 26(76.5) | 0.417 |
| Female | 11(32.4) | 8(23.5) | |
| Buccal mucosa | 24(70.6) | 19(55.9) | 0.194 |
| Dorsum tongue | 8(23.5) | 12(35.3) | |
| Base – tongue | 2(5.9) | 0 | |
| Others | 0 | 3(8.8) | |
| I | 1(2.9) | 2(5.9) | N/A |
| II | 11(32.4) | 13(38.2) | |
| III | 11(32.4) | 9(26.5) | |
| IV | 11(32.4) | 10(29.4) | |
Independent t test,
Chi-square, N/A= Not applicable due to cells have expected count less than 5, level of Significance 0.05
Detection and Recognition threshold.
| Group (DT) | Placebo (n =34) | Zinc (n =34) | Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salty Taste | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Mann-Whitney U | P-value |
| Baseline | 7.00 | (8.00-6.00) | 7.00 | (8.00-5.75) | 575.00 | 0.97 |
| End CCRT | 6.00 | (7.00-5.00) | 6.00 | (7.00-5.00) | 517.00 | 0.44 |
| Follow-up | 7.00 | (7.00-5.50) | 7.00 | (7.25-6.00) | 459.50 | 0.12 |
| Baseline | 6.00 | (7.00-4.75) | 6.00 | (7.00-0.75) | 506.50 | 0.37 |
| End CCRT | 5.00 | (5.25-1.75) | 5.00 | (6.00-4.00) | 484.0 | 0.24 |
| Follow-up | 6.00 | (7.00-1.00) | 6.00 | (7.00-4.00) | 541.5 | 0.65 |
*level of Significance 0.05
Detection and Recognition threshold
| Group (DT) | Placebo (n =34) | Zinc (n =34) | Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweet Taste | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Mann-Whitney U | P-value |
| Baseline | 5.50 | (7.25-3.75) | 5.50 | (7.00-2.50) | 521.00 | 0.48 |
| End CCRT | 5.50 | (6.00-4.00) | 5.00 | (7.00-3.75) | 571.00 | 0.93 |
| Follow-up | 5.50 | (6.00-4.00) | 6.00 | (6.25-4.50) | 505.50 | 0.36 |
| Baseline | 5.00 | (6.25-3.00) | 4.00 | (6.00-1.00) | 484.0 | 0.25 |
| End CCRT | 3.00 | (4.00-1.00) | 5.00 | (6.00-3.00) | 371.50 | 0.01 |
| Follow-up | 3.50 | (5.00-1.00) | 5.00 | (6.00-2.75) | 411.50 | 0.04 |
level of Significance 0.05
Detection and Recognition threshold.
| Group (DT) | Placebo (n =34) | Zinc (n =34) | Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sour Taste | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Mann-Whitney U | P-value |
| Baseline | 8.00 | (8.00-6.00) | 8.00 | (8.00-7.00) | 486.00 | 0.20 |
| End CCRT | 6.50 | (7.00-5.00) | 7.00 | (7.00-6.00) | 442.00 | 0.07 |
| Follow-up | 7.00 | (7.25-6.00) | 7.00 | (8.00-6.00) | 547.00 | 0.69 |
| Baseline | 7.00 | (8.00-5.75) | 8.00 | (8.00-5.75) | 486.50 | 0.24 |
| End CCRT | 5.50 | (6.00-5.00) | 6.00 | (7.00-6.00) | 365.0 | 0.006 |
| Follow-up | 7.00 | (7.00-5.75) | 6.00 | (7.00-6.00) | 5680 | 0.89 |
level of Significance 0.05
Detection and Recognition threshold.
| Group (DT) | Placebo (n =34) | Zinc (n =34) | Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bitter Taste | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Mann-Whitney U | P-value |
| Baseline | 6.00 | (8.00-5.00) | 7.00 | (8.00-5.00) | 563.500 | 0.856 |
| End CCRT | 6.00 | (7.00-3.75) | 5.50 | (7.00-5.00) | 558.500 | 0.808 |
| Follow-up | 6.00 | (7.00-5.00) | 6.00 | (7.00-6.00) | 441.000 | 0.084 |
| Baseline | 6.00 | (7.00-5.00) | 5.00 | (7.00-0.50) | 474.5 | 0.197 |
| End CCRT | 4.00 | (6.00-1.75) | 4.00 | (5.00-0.75) | 487.5 | 0.26 |
| Follow-up | 5.00 | (6.00-3.00) | 5.50 | (6.00-1.75) | 526.5 | 0.518 |
*level of Significance 0.05