Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32998738›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2020

Field-testing a psychosocial assessment scoring form for TMD patients - summarizing axis II instruments.

Tamara Günther, Oliver Schierz, Sebastian Hahnel, Angelika Rauch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Tamara GüntherDepartment of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Oliver SchierzDepartment of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Sebastian HahnelDepartment of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Angelika RauchDepartment of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. Angelika.rauch@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3881-0549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe etiology of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) can be explained on the basis of a biopsychosocial model. However, psychosocial assessment is challenging in daily dental practice. The purpose of the current study was to field-test the practicability of a novel psychosocial assessment scoring form regarding the reliability of scoring procedures and the opinion of examiners. The working hypotheses were that the scoring results of inexperienced undergraduate students were similar to the results collected by a gold standard and that the scoring form was easy to use.

methodsA psychosocial assessment scoring form was developed in accordance with guidelines of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), including results of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ), and Generalized Anxiety Disorders (GAD). Inexperienced operators (undergraduate students) examined patients with TMD-associated complaints and rated the practicability of the scoring form. The scoring results were recalculated by two experienced operators and a consensus was defined as a gold standard. Reliability coefficients were determined comparing results of the gold standard and the inexperienced operators.

resultsSixty-five examiners used the scoring form to obtain results for patients with TMD-associated complaints. Of the patients, 78.8% received a diagnosis according to DC/TMD decision trees. Two-thirds of the operators (62.9%) stated that the form was easy to complete, and 83.0% would use it in their dental practice. The reliability coefficients ranged between 0.81-1.00.

conclusionsWithin the limitations of the present study, the psychosocial assessment scoring form seems to be an easy-to-use and practicable tool. The vast majority of the inexperienced examiners recommended the application.

Indexed as

Facial PainTemporomandibular Joint DisordersHumansPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsSomatoform DisordersBehavioral sciencesCraniomandibular disordersDepressionPsychological

Identifiers

PMID32998738
PMCPMC7528229

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.