Development and Validation of the Epidemiological Diagnostic Instrument for Temporomandibular Disorders

被引:0
|
作者
Borges, Raul Elton Araujo [1 ]
Mendonca, Luana da Rocha Alves [1 ]
Oliveira, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli da Costa [1 ]
Calderon, Patricia dos Santos [1 ]
机构
[1] Fed Univ Rio Grande Norte UFRN, Dept Dent, Natal, Brazil
关键词
diagnosis; reliability; surveys and questionnaires; temporomandibular disorders; validation study; validity; RDC/TMD CONSORTIUM NETWORK; PRESSURE PAIN THRESHOLD; 3 SCREENING QUESTIONS; AXIS I; CONTENT VALIDITY; CRITERIA; RELIABILITY; ACCURACY; RECOMMENDATIONS; DC/TMD;
D O I
10.1111/joor.13853
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a highly misreported health problem. Its diagnosis is complex and requires the use of valid and reliable instruments. Objective To develop and validate the Epidemiological Diagnostic Instrument for TMD (EDI/TMD). Methods Content validity (CV), response process (RP), construct validity (EFA), reliability (inter and intraobserver consistency), and convergence validity of the EDI/TMD were assessed and compared to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD). Results An instrument composed of a 9-question questionnaire and a 12-step clinical protocol was developed. CV analysis reduced the instrument to a 5-question and 7-step clinical protocol (CVI = 0.93). Some instructions were included after the RP. The EFA found three factors: myogenous TMD, arthrogenous TMD, and differential diagnosis. The reliability scores ranged from substantial to excellent. When compared to the DC/TMD, the EDI/TMD total score indicated that this instrument is valid and provides satisfactory diagnostic criteria (Kappa = 0.906; p < 0.001), and can distinguish non-TMD and TMD individuals, with a cut-off point of 4.9 (Sensitivity = 1.0; Specificity = 1.0; AUC = 1.0). For individuals who had both myogenous and arthrogenous TMD, the cut-off point was 14 or higher (Sensitivity = 0.8; Specificity = 1.0; AUC = 0.987). For individuals who had either myogenous TMD (Sensitivity = 1.0; Specificity = 0.88; PPV = 0.89; NPV = 1.0) or arthrogenous TMD (Sensitivity = 0.95; Specificity = 0.87; PPV = 0.83; NPV = 0.96), the cut-off point was between 5 and 13.9, with the highest EFA score being the determinant factor for final diagnosis. Conclusion Based on its psychometric properties, the EDI/TMD is a valid and reliable assessment tool that is capable of diagnosing TMD and classifying its subtypes.
引用
收藏
页码:2548 / 2558
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Diagnostic and screening inventories for temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review
    Borges, Raul Elton Araujo
    Mendonca, Luana da Rocha Alves
    dos Santos Calderon, Patricia
    CRANIO-THE JOURNAL OF CRANIOMANDIBULAR & SLEEP PRACTICE, 2024, 42 (03): : 341 - 347
  • [2] Development and Validation of a Screening Checklist for Temporomandibular Disorders
    Zhao, Nan Nan
    Evans, R. Wendell
    Byth, Karen
    Murray, Greg M.
    Peck, Christopher C.
    JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL PAIN, 2011, 25 (03): : 210 - 222
  • [3] Constructing the brief diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (bDC/TMD) for field testing
    Durham, Justin
    Ohrbach, Richard
    Baad-Hansen, Lene
    Davies, Stephen
    De Laat, Antoon
    Goncalves, Daniela Godoi
    Gordan, Valeria V.
    Goulet, Jean-Paul
    Haggman-Henrikson, Birgitta
    Horton, Michael
    Koutris, Michail
    Law, Alan
    List, Thomas
    Lobbezoo, Frank
    Michelotti, Ambra
    Nixdorf, Donald R.
    Oyarzo, Juan Fernando
    Peck, Chris
    Penlington, Chris
    Raphael, Karen G.
    Santiago, Vivian
    Sharma, Sonia
    Svensson, Peter
    Visscher, Corine M.
    Yoshiki, Imamura
    Alstergren, Per
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2024, 51 (05) : 785 - 794
  • [4] Polish language adaptation and validation of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index for individuals with temporomandibular disorders
    Galczynska-Rusin, Matgorzata
    Pobudek-Radzikowska, Matgorzata
    Czajka-Jakubowska, Agata
    DENTAL AND MEDICAL PROBLEMS, 2024, 61 (05) : 705 - 711
  • [5] Diagnostic validity of clinical protocols to assess temporomandibular disk displacement disorders: a meta-analysis
    Pupo, Yasmine Mendes
    Quirino Pantoja, Leticia Lopes
    Veiga, Flavia Fusco
    Stechman-Neto, Jose
    Zwir, Liete Figueiredo
    Farago, Paulo Vitor
    Canto, Graziela De Luca
    Porporatti, Andre Luis
    ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 122 (05): : 572 - 586
  • [6] Temporomandibular joint damage in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Diagnostic validity of diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders
    Rongo, Roberto
    Alstergren, Per
    Ammendola, Lucia
    Bucci, Rosaria
    Alessio, Maria
    D'Anto, Vincenzo
    Michelotti, Ambra
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2019, 46 (05) : 450 - 459
  • [7] Reliability and Validity of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Axis I in Clinical and Research Settings: A Critical Appraisal
    Steenks, Michel H.
    Tuerp, Jens Christoph
    Habil, Dent
    de Wijer, Anton
    JOURNAL OF ORAL & FACIAL PAIN AND HEADACHE, 2018, 32 (01) : 7 - 18
  • [8] Tinnitus in Temporomandibular Disorders: Axis I and Axis II Findings According to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders
    Mijiritsky, Eitan
    Winocur, Ephraim
    Emodi-Perlman, Alona
    Friedman-Rubin, Pessia
    Daher, Ehab
    Reiter, Shoshana
    JOURNAL OF ORAL & FACIAL PAIN AND HEADACHE, 2020, 34 (03) : 265 - 272
  • [9] Validation of a Chinese version of the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale in relation to the diagnostic subgroup of temporomandibular disorders
    Xu, Lili
    He, Ying
    Fan, Shuai
    Cai, Bin
    Fang, Zhongyi
    Dai, Kerong
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2020, 47 (01) : 1 - 8
  • [10] Diagnostic targeting of temporomandibular disorders
    Shifman, A
    Gross, MD
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2001, 28 (11) : 1056 - 1063