SynthesisHead & face medicine2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the Fonseca anamnestic index for temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Head & face medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and performance of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) in screening for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis approach.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase from database inception to September 2025, using the keywords “Fonseca Anamnestic Index” and “temporomandibular disorders.” The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 tool. Threshold effects were examined with Meta-DiSc 1.4 software. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR)and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated via Stata 15.0. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias assessments were also performed.
resultsOut of 571 records identified, nine studies involving 2,381 patients met the inclusion criteria. Spearman correlation coefficient for threshold effect was 0.376 (P = 0.332 > 0.05), indicating no significant threshold effect. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82–0.94) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57–0.88), respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.28 (95% CI: 2.46–4.10) and 0.14(95% CI:0.07–0.27), respectively. The pooled DOR was 26.51 (95%CI: 11.66–60.23), and the summary AUC was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.93). Subgroup analyses indicated no notable fluctuation in diagnostic performance across populations, regions, or sample sizes, while sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the results. No significant publication bias was detected by Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test (P = 0.41 > 0.05).
conclusionThe FAI exhibits high diagnostic accuracy in TMD screening and may serve as a reliable clinical adjunct tool, facilitating early detection of TMD in evidence-based practices.
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.