ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2021
Preliminary study of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory-11: validation for patients with head and neck cancer.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Article
- Orofacial Pain and Snoring/Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Individuals with Head and Neck Cancer: A Critical Review.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer involves numerous physical, psychological and emotional changes and has a negative impact on patients. Although there are a wide variety of questionnaires for general use in patients with cancer, very few are available that assess the pain, disability and craniomandibular functionality of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in a more specific manner. The purpose of this study is to present the preliminary behavior of the CF-PDI in its reduced version adapted for patients with HNC. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 61 patients with HNC were included in a study to preliminarily analyze the internal consistency of the instrument, the convergent validity and the floor and ceiling effects. All the patients completed the informed consent document and a battery of 5 questionnaires: The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Quality of Life Questionnaire in patients with HNC (QLQ-HN) and the reduced version of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI-11). Patients also performed 2 physical tests: measurements of the pain threshold on the masseter muscle and on the distal phalanx of the first finger; and the maximum mouth opening in neutral head position.
resultsCronbach's α coefficient showed a very high internal consistency of 0.92. In terms of convergent validity, a statistically significant correlation was found between the CF-PDI-11 and the following variables: NRS, TSK-TMD, PCS, QLQ-HN, the threshold of pain in the distal phalanx of the first finger and the maximum interincisal opening. However, 21.3% of patients obtained the lowest possible score. The strongest correlation was found between the CF-PDI-11 and the QLQ-HN (r = 0.85, p <0.01).
conclusionsThe preliminary version of the CF-PDI-11 shows that it could be a valid and reliable instrument to measure pain, disability and quality of life in patients with HNC.
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.