SynthesisJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2024
Home-based rehabilitation versus centre-based programs in patients with temporomandibular disorders-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 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.
- Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Individuals With Myofascial Pain and Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- The effect of self-mobilization in combination with exercises on pain and function in patients with myogenic temporomandibular disorders; a self-controlled experimental study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative study of greater occipital nerve block and conventional therapy in chronic migraine.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the effects of home-based rehabilitation and occlusal splints or centre-based rehabilitation in patients with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD). A systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases were consulted from inception to August 2023, searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared home-based rehabilitation for TMD with splints or centre-based rehabilitation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 23 RCTs (1402 participants, three comparator interventions) were identified. Very low-certainty evidence suggested there are no clinically difference between home-based rehabilitation and splints in pain intensity (mean difference (MD) 7.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.17 to 13.32), maximal mouth opening (MMO) (MD 1.83, 95% CI: -0.27 to 3.93) at short and long-term follow-up, in sleep quality (MD: 1.67, 95% CI: -2.04 to 3.56) and quality of life (psychological: MD 0.94, 95% CI: -4.43 to 6.31; general: MD -1.18, 95% CI: -5.72 to 5.37) at short-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence suggested that home-based rehabilitation plus manual therapy is more effective for TMD treatment compared to home-based rehabilitation at short-term follow-up (pain intensity: MD: 14.93, 95% CI: 7.72 to 21.93; MMO: MD -2.93, 95% CI: -5.3 to -0.54; sleep quality: MD 1.4, 95% CI: 0.09 to 2.71). Compared with home-based rehabilitation, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was superior in pain relief at short-term follow-up. Low and very low-certainty evidence suggests home-based rehabilitation could be considered a low-cost, beneficial therapy alternative for TMD patients to relieve symptoms.
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.