Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review
Objectives Therapy outcome measures (TOMs) in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have not been systematically evaluated. We systematically explored the main TOM assessment methods for TMD TOMs used in previous studies.Design Scoping review.Data sources According to Preferred Reporting Items for Syst...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/8/e061387.full |
| _version_ | 1817995782807093248 |
|---|---|
| author | Yuki Watanabe Morio Aihara Kazuhiro Ooi Hidehisa Matsumura Shinpei Matsuda Hidemichi Yuasa Yoshizo Matsuka |
| author_facet | Yuki Watanabe Morio Aihara Kazuhiro Ooi Hidehisa Matsumura Shinpei Matsuda Hidemichi Yuasa Yoshizo Matsuka |
| author_sort | Yuki Watanabe |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives Therapy outcome measures (TOMs) in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have not been systematically evaluated. We systematically explored the main TOM assessment methods for TMD TOMs used in previous studies.Design Scoping review.Data sources According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review reporting guidelines, we systematically searched five key databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials) and thoroughly scanned relevant grey literature using Medical Subject Headings, Emtree and index terms.Eligibility criteria We considered primary research papers published from January 2010 to December 2020 that included patients with TMD aged ≥18 years, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.Data extraction and synthesis Four reviewers extracted general information and information on study design and setting, target, interventions, and outcome type.Results One hundred and seventy-two of the 3726 screened articles (3704 by search engines and 22 manually) were included. The TOMs analysed included pain (n=161 articles), maximal mouth opening (MMO) (91), jaw function (32), jaw movement (26), joint sound (16), quality of life (QOL) (15), depression/anxiety (14), oral QOL (10) or others (30). Evaluation periods were <4 weeks (111), <8 weeks (62), <12 weeks (59), >12 weeks (75) or ‘not mentioned’ (12). Pain outcomes (229) included general pain (115), tenderness (45), pain during functioning (44), resting pain (16) and others (8). Pain outcome evaluation methods included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 121), Numerical Rating Scale (21) and other methods (21). Pain outcome indicators were binary (10) or continuous (158); only five studies reported the least significant difference in treatment efficacy. MMO evaluation using painless methods (19) and jaw function evaluation using methods assessing mandibular movement range (23) were the most frequent.Conclusions TMD TOMs are diverse; the major outcomes were pain, MMO, jaw function and jaw movement. Most pain outcomes are evaluated by VAS Score changes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T02:11:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0afbe64e42e84052bc2c644ebc4f8858 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T02:11:00Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-0afbe64e42e84052bc2c644ebc4f88582022-12-22T02:18:24ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552022-08-0112810.1136/bmjopen-2022-061387Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping reviewYuki Watanabe0Morio Aihara1Kazuhiro Ooi2Hidehisa Matsumura3Shinpei Matsuda4Hidemichi Yuasa5Yoshizo Matsuka6Department of General Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia4Department of Gastroenterology and Hematology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, JapanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, JapanMatsumura Dental Clinic, Fukuoka, JapanDepartment of Dentistry and Oral Surgery, Unit of Sensory and Locomotor Medicine, Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui, JapanOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Toyohashi Medical Center, Toyohashi, JapanDepartment of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusal Reconstruction, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University, Tokushima, JapanObjectives Therapy outcome measures (TOMs) in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have not been systematically evaluated. We systematically explored the main TOM assessment methods for TMD TOMs used in previous studies.Design Scoping review.Data sources According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review reporting guidelines, we systematically searched five key databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials) and thoroughly scanned relevant grey literature using Medical Subject Headings, Emtree and index terms.Eligibility criteria We considered primary research papers published from January 2010 to December 2020 that included patients with TMD aged ≥18 years, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.Data extraction and synthesis Four reviewers extracted general information and information on study design and setting, target, interventions, and outcome type.Results One hundred and seventy-two of the 3726 screened articles (3704 by search engines and 22 manually) were included. The TOMs analysed included pain (n=161 articles), maximal mouth opening (MMO) (91), jaw function (32), jaw movement (26), joint sound (16), quality of life (QOL) (15), depression/anxiety (14), oral QOL (10) or others (30). Evaluation periods were <4 weeks (111), <8 weeks (62), <12 weeks (59), >12 weeks (75) or ‘not mentioned’ (12). Pain outcomes (229) included general pain (115), tenderness (45), pain during functioning (44), resting pain (16) and others (8). Pain outcome evaluation methods included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 121), Numerical Rating Scale (21) and other methods (21). Pain outcome indicators were binary (10) or continuous (158); only five studies reported the least significant difference in treatment efficacy. MMO evaluation using painless methods (19) and jaw function evaluation using methods assessing mandibular movement range (23) were the most frequent.Conclusions TMD TOMs are diverse; the major outcomes were pain, MMO, jaw function and jaw movement. Most pain outcomes are evaluated by VAS Score changes.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/8/e061387.full |
| spellingShingle | Yuki Watanabe Morio Aihara Kazuhiro Ooi Hidehisa Matsumura Shinpei Matsuda Hidemichi Yuasa Yoshizo Matsuka Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review BMJ Open |
| title | Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review |
| title_full | Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review |
| title_fullStr | Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review |
| title_short | Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review |
| title_sort | therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder a scoping review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/8/e061387.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yukiwatanabe therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview AT morioaihara therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview AT kazuhiroooi therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview AT hidehisamatsumura therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview AT shinpeimatsuda therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview AT hidemichiyuasa therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview AT yoshizomatsuka therapyoutcomemeasuresintemporomandibulardisorderascopingreview |