ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2025
Criterion Validity of the Isometric Contraction Test for Diagnosis of Axis I DC/TMD Considering Specific Muscles.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the validity of the Isometric Contraction Test (ICTest) for the DC/TMD in axis I regarding specific muscles such as the masseter, temporalis and medial pterygoid muscles.
methodsForty patients with a diagnosis of TMD axis I of muscle origin and forty healthy controls were evaluated with the ICTest. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were determined concerning the DC/TMD on axis I of muscle type, individually assessing the masseter, temporalis and medial pterygoid muscles.
resultsThe ICTest achieved a sensitivity ranging from 41% to 88.9% in masseter and temporalis muscles with lower values for the medial pterygoid muscle and when referred myofascial pain subtype was analysed. Specificity remained stable in both situations, the subtype of myalgia and the muscles studied, ranging from 93.4% to 98.7%. The LR values indicated high variability depending on the muscle and type of pain, although LR+ and LR- were ≥ 7.08 and ≤ 0.76%, respectfully, in all cases.
conclusionsThe ICTest is highly specific when studying the masseter, temporalis and pterygoid muscles, with the latest one showing the poorest results. Referred myofascial pain exhibits the lowest validity for all the muscles.
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.