DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 23, 2020, without language restrictions. There was no restriction on the study design; therefore, observational studies, clinical trials, and case series were included. In addition, preprints were considered if data of interest were reported.

REVIEW METHODS: Two authors independently screened articles for eligibility. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CIs. Quality assessment was done with critical appraisal tools of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies were included (N = 29,349 patients, 64.4% female). The pooled prevalence of taste disorders in patients with COVID-19 was 48.1% (95% CI, 41.3%-54.8%). The prevalence of taste disorders in studies with objective assessments was higher as compared with subjective assessments (59.2% vs 47.3%). The disorders were observed in 55.2% of European patients; 61.0%, North American; 27.1%, Asian; 29.5%, South American; and 25.0%, Australian. Ageusia, hypogeusia, and dysgeusia were detected in 28.0%, 33.5%, and 41.3% of patients with COVID-19. We identified 91.5% of the included studies as high quality.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for the management of patients with taste disturbances.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 4 July 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 4 July 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 July 2017); Embase Ovid (1980 to 4 July 2017); CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 4 July 2017); and AMED Ovid (1985 to 4 July 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for trials. Abstracts from scientific meetings and conferences were searched on 25 September 2017. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological agent with a control intervention or any non-pharmacological agent with a control intervention. We also included cross-over trials in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently, and in duplicate, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. Wherever possible, we contacted trial authors for additional information. We collected adverse events information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (581 participants), nine of which we were able to include in the quantitative analyses (566 participants). We assessed three trials (30%) as having a low risk of bias, four trials (40%) at high risk of bias and three trials (30%) as having an unclear risk of bias. We only included studies on taste disorders in this review that were either idiopathic, or resulting from zinc deficiency or chronic renal failure.Of these, nine trials with 544 people compared zinc supplements to placebo for patients with taste disorders. The participants in two trials were children and adolescents with respective mean ages of 10 and 11.2 years and the other seven trials had adult participants. Out of these nine, two trials assessed the patient-reported outcome for improvement in taste acuity using zinc supplements (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 2.09; 119 participants, very low-quality evidence). We meta-analysed for taste acuity improvement using objective outcome (continuous data) in idiopathic and zinc-deficient taste disorder patients (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65; 366 participants, three trials, very low-quality evidence). We also analysed one cross-over trial separately using the first half of the results for taste detection (mean difference (MD) 2.50, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.07; 14 participants, very low-quality evidence), and taste recognition (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.34; 14 participants, very low-quality evidence). We meta-analysed taste acuity improvement using objective outcome (dichotomous data) in idiopathic and zinc-deficient taste disorder patients (RR 1.42, 95% 1.09 to 1.84; 292 participants, two trials, very low-quality evidence). Out of the nine trials using zinc supplementation, four reported adverse events like eczema, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, decrease in blood iron, increase in blood alkaline phosphatase, and minor increase in blood triglycerides.One trial tested taste discrimination using acupuncture (MD 2.80, 95% CI -1.18 to 6.78; 37 participants, very low-quality evidence). No adverse events were reported in the acupuncture trial.None of the included trials could be included in the meta-analysis for health-related quality of life in taste disorder patients.