Harry von Piekartz1, Julius Schwiddessen1, Lukas Reineke1, Susan Armijo-Olivio2, Débora Bevilaqua-Grossi3, Daniela A Biasotto Gonzalez4, Gabriela Carvalho5,6, Eve Chaput7,8, Erin Cox9, Cesar Fernández-de-Las-Peñas10,11, Inae Caroline Gadotti12, Alfonso Gil Martínez13, Anita Gross14, Toby Hall15,16, Marisa Hoffmann17, Elisabeth Heggem Julsvoll18, Micheal Karegeannes19, Roy La Touche20,21,22, Jeffrey Mannheimer23,24,25, Laurent Pitance26, Mariano Rocabado27, Mark Strickland28, Wolfgang Stelzenmüller29, Caroline Speksnijder30, Hedwig Aleida van der Meer31, Kerstin Luedke32, Nicolaus Ballenberger1. 1. Department Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation science, University of Applied Science Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. 2. Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry Rehabilitation Research Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton Institute of Health Economics (IHE), Edmonton, AB, Canada. 3. Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. University Nove de Julho of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Lübeck University and Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 6. University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 7. University of Montreal and Western University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 8. Quebec Association of Orthopedic Manual Physiotherapy (AQPMO), Montreal, QC, Canada. 9. Kinatex Sports Physio, Laval, QC, Canada. 10. Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 11. Cátedra de Docencia, Clínica e Investigación en Fisioterapia: Terapia Manual, Punción Seca y Ejercicio Terapéutico - University Rey Juan Carlos of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 12. Department of Physical Therapy, Nicole Wertheim College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA. 13. University Autónoma of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 14. Rehabilitation Sciences - McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 15. Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. 16. University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. 17. AGILPHYSIO physical therapy, Nieder-Olm, Germany. 18. Hans and Olaf physical therapy of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 19. Freedom physical therapy services, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 20. Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios - Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 21. Grupo de Investigación Motion in Brains, Instituto de Neurociencia y Ciencias del Movimiento (INCIMOV), Centro Superior de Estudios, Universitarios La Salle - Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 22. Instituto de Neurociencia y Dolor Craneofacial (INDCRAN), Madrid, Spain. 23. Delaware Valley Physical Therapy Associates, New Jersey, NJ, USA. 24. Department of Regenerative and Rehabilitation Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 25. Physical Therapy Board of Craniofacial & Cervical Therapeutics Office for physical therapy, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA. 26. Faculté des Sciences de la Motricité FSM, Institut de Recherche Expetimentale et Clinique (IREC), Laboratoire de Neuro musculo squelettique (NMSK) - University catholic of Louvain, Neuve, Belgium. 27. Dean Faculty of Rehabilitation Science, University Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile. 28. Operations Central Texas, For Health Sciences - University of St. Augustine, St. Augustine, FL, USA. 29. Office for physical therapy, Neu-Isenburg, Germany. 30. Division Surgical Specialty, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Dental Care, Head and Neck Surgical Oncology - University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 31. Centre for Applied Research on Education - Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam Centre for Innovative Health Practice (ACHIEVE), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 32. Department of Physical Therapy, University Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT). METHODS: A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations. RESULTS: Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test. CONCLUSION: After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.
OBJECTIVE: To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT). METHODS: A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations. RESULTS: Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test. CONCLUSION: After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.
Authors: Tomás Pérez-Fernández; Susan Armijo-Olivo; Sonia Liébana; Pablo José de la Torre Ortíz; Josué Fernández-Carnero; Rafael Raya; Aitor Martín-Pintado-Zugasti Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 4.262