Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30984320›Full record

Trial reportPain research & management2019

Comparison of Early Effectiveness of Three Different Intervention Methods in Patients with Chronic Orofacial Pain: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

Bartosz Dalewski, Agata Kamińska, Michał Szydłowski, Małgorzata Kozak, Ewa Sobolewska

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pain research & management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Cranio-Mandibular Disorders after Whiplash Injury: A Mono-Institutional Clinical Study on 31 Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Cells · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bartosz DalewskiChair and Department of Dental Prosthetics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0652-664X
Agata KamińskaChair and Department of Dental Prosthetics, Specialists' Dental Clinic, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
Michał SzydłowskiFaculty of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin, Poland.
Małgorzata KozakChair and Department of Dental Prosthetics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
Ewa SobolewskaChair and Department of Dental Prosthetics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
Pomeranian Medical University · PLWest Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Occlusal appliances are still widely used instruments in the management of orofacial pain in dentistry, yet alone or as a part of multimodal therapy. However, some of those modalities have been lacking thorough randomized assessment, and there is a conflicting evidence available. It is hypothesized that pain symptoms might improve faster and in more tangible way due to combined therapy. Also, to our best knowledge, nimesulide was never examined in this aspect, too. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare early effectiveness of routine intervention methods in patients with myofascial pain (MP) after 3 weeks' notice. Three modalities were evaluated: occlusal appliance (OA) with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy (nimesulide), occlusal appliance with dry needling (DN), and occlusal appliance (OA-control group) therapy. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) in which ninety patients with MP, who met the inclusion criteria, were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups. Sealed, opaque envelopes were used. Methods: For evaluation, each patient completed a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Sleep and Pain Activity Questionnaire (SPAQ) twice, first at the beginning of the study and again after 3 weeks (0-3). Results: Posttreatment test comparison between the control group and both treated groups reveal significant differences between the control and the NSAID + occlusal appliance groups. There were also differences reported between the control and the DN + occlusal appliance groups, but these differences were, however, not statistically significant. Conclusions: Occlusal appliances in conjunction with NSAID showed better orofacial pain relief after 3 weeks of therapy, compared to the use of occlusal appliances alone or in conjunction with dry needling. Additionally, differences between pain perception and quality of life between OA and DN + OA groups were not found to be statistically significant.

Indexed as

Occlusal SplintsAdolescentAdultAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCombined Modality TherapyDry NeedlingFacial PainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyofascial Pain SyndromesPain ManagementTemporomandibular Joint DisordersTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal

Identifiers

PMID30984320
PMCPMC6432695
OpenAlexW2921840983

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.