ArticleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2024
Development and validation of a search strategy and an automated classifier for retrieving temporomandibular disorders studies.
Article 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A patient journey map based on the experience of temporomandibular disorders patients: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective was to develop and evaluate a comprehensive search strategy (SS) and automated classifier (AC) for retrieving temporomandibular disorders (TMD) research articles. An initial version of SS and AC was created by compiling terms from various sources, including previous systematic reviews (SRs) and consulting with TMD specialists. Performance was assessed using the relative recall (RR) method against a sample of all the primary studies (PS) included in 100 TMD-related SRs, with RR calculated for both SS and AC based on their ability to capture/classify TMD PSs. Adjustments were made iteratively. A validation was performed against PSs included in all TMD-relevant SRs published from January to April 2023. The analysis included 1271 PSs from 100 SRs published between 2002-2022. The initial SS had a relative recall of 89.34%, while the AC detected 70.05% of the studies. After adjustments, the fifth version reached 99.5% and 89.5% relative recall, respectively. Validation with 28 SRs from 2023 showed a search strategy sensitivity of 99.67% and AC sensitivity of 88.04%. In conclusion, the proposed SS demonstrated excellent performance in retrieving TMD-related research articles, with only a small percentage not correctly classified by the AC. The SS can effectively support evidence synthesis related to TMD, while the AC can aid in creating an open-access, continuously updated digital repository for all relevant TMD evidence.
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.