AIMS: To derive reliable and valid revised Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms for clinical TMD diagnoses. METHODS: The multisite RDC/TMD Validation Project's dataset (614 TMD community and clinic cases, and 91 controls) was used to derive revised algorithms for Axis I TMD diagnoses. Validity of diagnostic algorithms was assessed relative to reference standards, the latter based on consensus diagnoses rendered by two TMD experts using criterion examination data, including temporomandibular joint imaging. Cutoff points for target validity were sensitivity > or = 0.70 and specificity > or = 0.95. Reliability of revised algorithms was assessed in 27 study participants. RESULTS: Revised algorithm sensitivity and specificity exceeded the target levels for myofascial pain (0.82, 0.99, respectively) and myofascial pain with limited opening (0.93, 0.97). Combining diagnoses for any myofascial pain showed sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 1.00. For joint pain, target sensitivity and specificity were observed (0.92, 0.96) when arthralgia and osteoarthritis were combined as "any joint pain." Disc displacement without reduction with limited opening demonstrated target sensitivity and specificity (0.80, 0.97). For the other disc displacement diagnoses, osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis, sensitivity was below target (0.35 to 0.53), and specificity ranged from 0.80 to meeting target. Kappa for revised algorithm diagnostic reliability was > or =0.63. CONCLUSION: Revised RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnostic algorithms are recommended for myofascial pain and joint pain as reliable and valid. However, revised clinical criteria alone, without recourse to imaging, are inadequate for valid diagnosis of two of the three disc displacements as well as osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis.
AIMS: To derive reliable and valid revised Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms for clinical TMD diagnoses. METHODS: The multisite RDC/TMD Validation Project's dataset (614 TMD community and clinic cases, and 91 controls) was used to derive revised algorithms for Axis I TMD diagnoses. Validity of diagnostic algorithms was assessed relative to reference standards, the latter based on consensus diagnoses rendered by two TMD experts using criterion examination data, including temporomandibular joint imaging. Cutoff points for target validity were sensitivity > or = 0.70 and specificity > or = 0.95. Reliability of revised algorithms was assessed in 27 study participants. RESULTS: Revised algorithm sensitivity and specificity exceeded the target levels for myofascial pain (0.82, 0.99, respectively) and myofascial pain with limited opening (0.93, 0.97). Combining diagnoses for any myofascial pain showed sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 1.00. For joint pain, target sensitivity and specificity were observed (0.92, 0.96) when arthralgia and osteoarthritis were combined as "any joint pain." Disc displacement without reduction with limited opening demonstrated target sensitivity and specificity (0.80, 0.97). For the other disc displacement diagnoses, osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis, sensitivity was below target (0.35 to 0.53), and specificity ranged from 0.80 to meeting target. Kappa for revised algorithm diagnostic reliability was > or =0.63. CONCLUSION: Revised RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnostic algorithms are recommended for myofascial pain and joint pain as reliable and valid. However, revised clinical criteria alone, without recourse to imaging, are inadequate for valid diagnosis of two of the three disc displacements as well as osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Eric L Schiffman; Edmond L Truelove; Richard Ohrbach; Gary C Anderson; Mike T John; Thomas List; John O Look Journal: J Orofac Pain Date: 2010
Authors: J Schilling; L C R Gomes; E Benavides; T Nguyen; B Paniagua; M Styner; V Boen; J R Gonçalves; L H S Cevidanes Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Eric Schiffman; Richard Ohrbach; Edmond Truelove; John Look; Gary Anderson; Jean-Paul Goulet; Thomas List; Peter Svensson; Yoly Gonzalez; Frank Lobbezoo; Ambra Michelotti; Sharon L Brooks; Werner Ceusters; Mark Drangsholt; Dominik Ettlin; Charly Gaul; Louis J Goldberg; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Lars Hollender; Rigmor Jensen; Mike T John; Antoon De Laat; Reny de Leeuw; William Maixner; Marylee van der Meulen; Greg M Murray; Donald R Nixdorf; Sandro Palla; Arne Petersson; Paul Pionchon; Barry Smith; Corine M Visscher; Joanna Zakrzewska; Samuel F Dworkin Journal: J Oral Facial Pain Headache Date: 2014
Authors: C C Peck; J-P Goulet; F Lobbezoo; E L Schiffman; P Alstergren; G C Anderson; R de Leeuw; R Jensen; A Michelotti; R Ohrbach; A Petersson; T List Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.837
Authors: Ksenija Rener-Sitar; Mike T John; Snigdha S Pusalavidyasagar; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay; Eric L Schiffman Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: E L Schiffman; A M Velly; J O Look; J S Hodges; J Q Swift; K L Decker; Q N Anderson; R B Templeton; P A Lenton; W Kang; J R Fricton Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 2.789