ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
"Prospective Clinical Validation of an Optimized TMD Screening Tool: Results of a Two-Stage Validation Process".
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this prospective validation study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a newly developed TMD screening tool of the German Society for Craniomandibular Function (DGFDT) in its statistically optimized scoring version as well as in a clinically modified version, and to compare both with established screening instruments. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 121 consecutive patients treated at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin were examined using the DC/TMD as reference standard. The DGFDT TMD screening tool was compared with the "CMD-Kurzbefund" according to Ahlers and Jakstat and the three TMD-related screening questions according to Lövgren et al. In addition to the primary analysis, a predefined sensitivity analysis excluded cases with isolated, painless temporomandibular joint noises (n = 110). Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using exact binomial methods.
resultsIn the primary analysis, the statistically optimized version of the TMD screening tool achieved both sensitivity and specificity of 100.0%, representing the statistical optimum. The clinically modified DGFDT version achieved a sensitivity of 84.6% while maintaining a specificity of 100.0%. In the predefined sensitivity analysis, its sensitivity increased to 98.1%, while specificity remained 100.0%. Established comparator instruments showed lower sensitivities in the primary analysis ("CMD-Kurzbefund": 73.8%; 3Q/TMD: 75.4%) and in the sensitivity analysis ("CMD-Kurzbefund": 85.2%; 3Q/TMD: 90.7%).
conclusionsBoth DGFDT screening versions demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in this single-center cohort. The clinically modified version represents a consensus- and evidence-based alternative that reduces the impact of isolated, painless temporomandibular joint noises without relevant loss of diagnostic accuracy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The DGFDT TMD screening tool provides a standardized and practical instrument for early clinical detection of temporomandibular disorders and may contribute to the standardization of TMD diagnostics.
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.