Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23145559›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2012

Reliability and validity of self-assessment of mouth opening: a validation study.

Daniel Satnam Singh Saund, David Pearson, Thomas Dietrich

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Quality of life, craniomandibular function, and psychosocial factors related to pain and movement in patients with head and neck cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel Satnam Singh SaundSpecialist Registrar Oral Surgeon, University of Birmingham, St Chads Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK.
David Pearson
Thomas Dietrich
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility and validity of patients' mouth opening measurements in a research setting.

methodsFirstly, 68 patients made repeated self-measurements of mouth opening using a cardboard scale (Therabite Range of Motion Scale - TRMS). Secondly, 80 patients enrolled in a clinical trial on morbidity after lower third molar surgery, made daily assessments during the postoperative week. Patients' measurements were then compared to gold-standard clinicians' measurements.

resultsReliability of patients' measurements was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92. The patient's measurements correlated well with the gold-standard clinician's measurements, both for the first 68 patients (Pearson's rho ranging from 0.86 to 0.90, p < 0.0001) as well as for the 80 patients enrolled in the clinical trial (rho = 0.82, p < 0.0001 at day 2, rho = 0.83, p < 0.0001 at final visit).

conclusionsTRMS can be used by patients to produce reproducible and valid mouth opening measurements.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationMouthRange of Motion, ArticularAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsStatistics, NonparametricTemporomandibular JointTooth ExtractionTrismusYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23145559
PMCPMC3534492
OpenAlexW2078121610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.