SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Usefulness of biofeedback as a potentially educational treatment of temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents: an underexplored condition in need of developmentally informed diagnostic guidance.Pain management · 2026Review
- Article
- The Translational Biology of Temporomandibular Disorder Pain: Mechanisms, Biomarkers, and Therapeutic Perspectives.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Centric stabilization occlusal splints vs. other conservative therapies in the management of temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of biofeedback (BF) as a potential educational treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) through a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) to identify clinical trials using BF as a therapeutic intervention in patients diagnosed with TMD according to RDC/TMD or DC/TMD criteria. A frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis was performed with robust variance estimation to account for within-study correlations in the repeated measures. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using an autoregressive lag-1 (AR1) model at correlation levels ranging from 0 to 0.8. Model fit was assessed using likelihood ratio tests (LRT) and corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc).
resultsNine studies (N = 758) were included. No statistically significant differences in pain intensity were observed between the interventions at post-treatment or follow-up. The fixed-effects model without autocorrelation showed the best fit (AICc = 54.293). According to the P-score ranking, occlusal splints and no intervention showed the highest probabilities of effectiveness, whereas biofeedback ranked lower. No publication bias was detected according to Egger's test and funnel plot symmetry.
conclusionsAlthough BF did not outperform other interventions in terms of pain intensity, it showed comparable efficacy and may offer additional benefits by promoting self-regulation and psychological resilience. These findings suggest that BF can be explored as a complementary tool within the biopsychosocial approach to TMD rehabilitation.
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.