Search

Aims: To investigate the relationship of headache frequency with patient-reported physical functioning and emotional functioning in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) subjects with concurrent temple headache. Methods: The Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) Validation Project identified, as a subset of 614 TMD cases and 91 controls (n = 705), 309 subjects with concurrent TMD pain diagnoses (RDC/TMD) and temple headache. The temple headaches were subdivided into infrequent, frequent, and chronic headache according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-II). Study variables included self-report measures of physical functioning (Jaw Function Limitation Scale [JFLS], Graded Chronic Pain Scale [GCPS], Short Form-12 [SF-12]) and emotional functioning (depression and anxiety as measured by the Symptom Checklist-90R/SCL-90R). Differences among the three headache subgroups were characterized by increasing headache frequency. The relationship between ordered headache frequency and physical as well as emotional functioning was analyzed using linear regression and trend tests for proportions. Results: Physical functioning, as assessed with the JFLS (P < .001), SF-12 (P < .001), and GCPS (P < .001), was significantly associated with increased headache frequency. Emotional functioning, reflected in depression and anxiety, was also associated with increased frequency of headache (both P < .001). Conclusion: Headache frequency was substantially correlated with reduced physical functioning and emotional functioning in subjects with TMD and concurrent temple headaches. A secondary finding was that headache was precipitated by jaw activities more often in subjects with more frequent temple headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 > 0.70 and specificity > 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 ≥ 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The purpose of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project was to assess the diagnostic validity of this examination protocol. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the project's methodology, descriptive statistics, and data for the study participant sample. This article also details the development of reliable methods to establish the reference standards for assessing criterion validity of the Axis I RDC/TMD diagnoses. Methods: The Axis I reference standards were based on the consensus of two criterion examiners independently performing a comprehensive history, clinical examination, and evaluation of imaging. Intersite reliability was assessed annually for criterion examiners and radiologists. Criterion examination reliability was also assessed within study sites. Results: Study participant demographics were comparable to those of participants in previous studies using the RDC/TMD. Diagnostic agreement of the criterion examiners with each other and with the consensus-based reference standards was excellent with all kappas ≥ 0.81, except for osteoarthrosis (moderate agreement, κ = 0.53). Intrasite criterion examiner agreement with reference standards was excellent (κ ≥ 0.95). Intersite reliability of the radiologists for detecting computed tomography-disclosed osteoarthrosis and magnetic resonance imaging-disclosed disc displacement was good to excellent (κ = 0.71 and 0.84, respectively). Conclusion: The Validation Project study population was appropriate for assessing the reliability and validity of the RDC/TMD Axis I and II. The reference standards used to assess the validity of Axis I TMD were based on reliable and clinically credible methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) biobehavioral (Axis II) screening instruments. Methods: Participants with Axis I TMD diagnoses (n = 626) completed the Axis II instruments (Depression, Nonspecific Physical Symptoms, Graded Chronic Pain) and other instruments assessing psychological distress, pain, and disability at three study sites. Internal consistency, temporal stability, and convergent/ discriminant validity of the Axis II measures were assessed. To assess criterion validity of Nonspecific Physical Symptoms and Depression instruments as screeners, 170 participants completed a structured psychiatric diagnostic interview. Results: The Axis II instruments showed very good to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficients = 0.80 to 0.95). Their convergent (correlation range 0.3 to 0.9) and discriminant (range 0.0 to 0.6) validity were generally supported, although Nonspecific Physical Symptoms was more strongly associated with depressive than with somatic symptoms. Temporal stability was high for characteristic pain intensity (Lin's correlation concordance coefficient [CCC] = 0.91), interference (CCC = 0.89), and chronic pain grade (weighted kappa = 0.87), and fair to good for Depression and Nonspecific Physical Symptoms (CCC = 0.63 to 0.78). The Depression instrument normal versus moderate to severe cutoff point was good at identifying current-year depression and dysthymia diagnoses (sensitivity 87%, specificity 53%). Nonspecific Physical Symptoms did not have high utility for detecting psychiatric disorders (sensitivity 86%, specificity 31%). Conclusion: The Axis-II Depression and Graded Chronic Pain instruments have clinically relevant and acceptable psychometric properties for reliability and validity and utility as instruments for identifying TMD patients with high levels of distress, pain, and disability that can interfere with treatment response and course of Axis I disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The primary aim was to determine new estimates for the measurement reliability of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms. A second aim was to present data on the reliability of key clinical measures of the diagnostic algorithms. Methods: Kappa (κ), computed by generalized estimate equation procedures, was selected as the primary estimate of interexaminer reliability. Intersite reliability of six examiners from three study sites was assessed annually over the 5-year period of the RDC/TMD Validation Project. Intrasite reliability was monitored throughout the validation study by comparing RDC/TMD data collections performed on the same day by the test examiner and a criterion examiner. Results: Intersite calibrations included a total of 180 subjects. Intersite reliability of RDC/TMD diagnoses was excellent (κ > 0.75) when myofascial pain diagnoses (Ia or Ib) were grouped. Good reliability was observed for discrete myofascial pain diagnoses Ia (κ = 0.62) and Ib (κ = 0.58), for disc displacement with reduction (κ = 0.63), disc displacement without reduction with limited opening (κ = 0.62), arthralgia (κ = 0.55), and when joint pain (IIIa or IIIb) was grouped (κ = 0.59). Reliability of less frequently observed diagnoses such as disc displacements without reduction without limited opening, and osteoarthrosis (IIIb, IIIc), was poor to marginally fair (κ = 0.31-0.43). Intrasite monitoring results (n = 705) approximated intersite reliability estimates. The greatest difference in paired estimates was 0.18 (IIc). Conclusion: Reliability of the RDC/TMD protocol was good to excellent for myofascial pain, arthralgia, disc displacement with reduction, and disc displacement without reduction with limited opening. Reliability was poor to marginally fair for disc displacement without reduction without limited opening and osteoarthrosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project has provided the first comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity of the original Axis I and II. In addition, Axis I of the RDC/TMD was revised with estimates of reliability and validity. These findings are reported in the five preceding articles in this series. The aim of this article is to present further revisions of Axis I and II for consideration by the TMD research and clinical communities. Potential Axis I revisions include addressing concerns with orofacial pain differential diagnosis and changes in nomenclature in an attempt to provide improved consistency with other musculoskeletal diagnostic systems. In addition, expansion of the RDC/TMD to include the less common TMD conditions and disorders would make it more comprehensive and clinically useful. The original standards for diagnostic sensitivity (≤ 0.70) and specificity (≤ 0.95) should be reconsidered to reflect changes in the field since the RDC/TMD was published in 1992. Pertaining to Axis II, current recommendations for all chronic pain conditions include standardized instruments and expansion of the domains assessed. In addition, there is need for improved clinical efficiency of Axis II instruments and for exploring methods to better integrate Axis I and II in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To describe patients' daily coping with the pain of chronic temporomandibular disorders (TMD), the conservative treatment received, and the self-care strategies used, and to examine the relationships between these strategies and daily pain intensity, activity interference, and jaw use limitations. Methods: TMD clinic patients (n = 137, 88% women) completed electronic diary measures of pain, interference, jaw use limitations, and use of 20 strategies 3 times daily for 2 weeks. Results: Reliability and validity were demonstrated for 4 scales of related coping items: cognitive coping, relaxation, activity reduction, and emotional support. Average scores were higher on the relaxation and activity reduction scales than on the cognitive coping and emotional support scales. Among the coping items not included in the scales, "did something to try to reduce pain" (direct action) was endorsed most frequently (reported in a median of 74% of interviews). Heat, cold, and seeking spiritual support were used least (⩽5%). At times of increased pain, patients were more likely to use almost all types of strategies. Pain intensity was associated strongly with concurrent activity interference and jaw use limitations. When the design controlled for pain intensity, activity reduction and seeking emotional support were associated positively within-subjects with interference and jaw use limitations. Conclusion: TMD clinic patients use a variety of treatment, self-care, and coping strategies to contend with daily pain. Inquiring about a broad range of strategies might help clinicians better understand how individual patients approach pain management. Research is needed to examine whether decreasing activity reduction and emotional support coping results in improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine whether catastrophizing is associated with clinical examination findings, pain-related activity interference, and health care use among patients with pain related to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Methods: Patients with TMD (n = 338; 87% female; mean age, 37 years) completed measures of pain, pain-related activity interference, health care use, and depression, and received a Research Diagnostic Criteria/Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) clinical examination from an oral medicine specialist. Results: Catastrophizing was not significantly associated with the more objective clinical examination measures of maximum assisted jaw opening and jaw-joint sounds, but it was associated with the more subjective examination measures (unassisted opening without pain, extraoral muscle site palpation pain severity, joint site palpation pain severity) and with increased TMD-related activity interference and number of health care visits (P values for all < .01). Even after controlling for demographic variables, pain duration, and depression severity, catastrophizing remained significantly associated with extra oral muscle and joint site palpation pain severity and with activity interference and number of health care visits. Conclusion: TMD patients who catastrophize have higher scores on clinical examination measures reflecting more widely dispersed and severe pain upon palpation of TMD-related facial muscle and joint sites, as well as greater TMD-related activity interference and health care use. Clinicians should consider screening patients with moderate or greater TMD pain and activity interference for catastrophizing. Cognitive-behavioral interventions may help reduce pain, disability, and health care use of patients who catastrophize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]