ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2020
Reproducibility and construct validity of the utrecht mixing ability Test to obtain masticatory performance outcome in patients with condylar mandibular fractures.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral functioning after open versus closed treatment of unilateral condylar neck or base fractures: A two-centre controlled clinical trial.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Functioning of the Masticatory System in Patients with an Alloplastic Total Temporomandibular Joint Prostheses Compared with Healthy Individuals: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Mastication in maxillectomy patients: A comparison between reconstructed maxillae and implant supported obturators: A cross-sectional study.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Reliability of the mixing ability test testing masticatory performance in patients with head and neck cancer and healthy controls.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Reproducibility and construct validity of the utrecht mixing ability Test to obtain masticatory performance outcome in patients with condylar mandibular fractures.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study assessed the test-retest reproducibility of the Utrecht mixing ability test (MAT) and the construct validity of the MAT in relation to the Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ) in patients with mandibular condylar fractures. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwenty-six patients treated for a mandibular condylar fracture participated in this clinimetric study; all patients performed the MAT twice. Simultaneously the MFIQ was conducted. Test-retest reliability and construct validity were assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman correlation, respectively.
resultsThe ICC of the MAT was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.801-0.957), which indicates an excellent reliability. A weak correlation of 0.386 (P = .052) between the first MAT and the overall outcome of the MFIQ was found. A significant moderate correlation of 0.401 (P = .042) was found between the retest of the MAT and the overall outcome of the MFIQ. One question on the MFIQ (about yawning) showed a moderate positive correlation of 0.569 (P = .002) and 0.416 (P = .034) for the MAT test and retest, respectively.
conclusionThe MAT is an easy test to use in follow-up of patients. The test-retest reliability of this test is excellent in condylar trauma patients. As the validity of the MAT and the MFIQ could not be confirmed, the MFIQ may be an addition to patient's feedback about the rehabilitation process of their mandibular functioning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.