ArticleEuropean journal of oral sciences2024
Gender variability in palpation performance for temporomandibular disorders with three different methods: An experimental study.
Article in European journal of oral sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The gender of the examiner affects pain perception and reporting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain reports · 2026Review
- Jaw muscle and joint psychophysics-relevance for clinical orofacial pain practice and research. A narrative review.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2025Review
- Gender variability in palpation performance for temporomandibular disorders with three different methods: An experimental study.European journal of oral sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gender differences in pain reporting and prevalence have been demonstrated. As gender of examiner also affects reporting of pain on palpation, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of examiner gender on palpation performance using three different palpation methods. Examiners of both genders were instructed on the correct technique for each palpation method by either a female or male instructor. The target was to achieve a pressure of 100 kPa, corresponding to the 1 kg of force for muscle palpation described in the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD). All examiners performed traditional palpation with the index finger, palpation with a palpometer, and a novel bimanual palpation with visual feedback, in a randomized order. The examiner's gender, and its interaction with the gender of the instructor did not significantly affect magnitude, accuracy, or precision of the pressure applied. The method of palpation was the only factor that significantly impacted all metrics. The palpometer achieved the lowest palpation magnitude (mean pressure applied = 113.7 kPa, 95% CI: 109.8-117.6), the highest accuracy (absolute difference = 15.7 kPa, 95% CI: 12.3-19.1), and the highest precision (mean coefficient of variation = 6.8, 95% CI: 6.0-7.6), followed by bimanual palpation and traditional palpation. The results suggest that gender differences in pain reporting in patients are not likely to be a result of the technical aspects associated with the gender of the examiner. Instead, these differences may be attributed to other factors, such as sociocultural influences.
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.