Quality of life in young and middle age adult temporomandibular disorders patients and asymptomatic subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the difference in the quality of life between temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients and non-TMD subjects diagnosed with the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) or the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). METHODS: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases were searched in studies published in English and Portuguese. The search was performed by two independent reviewers in duplicate. A manual search and the gray literature were also included. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies that used the RDC/TMD axis I and quality of life with standard questionnaires in young and middle-aged adult population (18-55 years). The data were analyzed quantitatively by combining the results in a meta-analysis using forest plots. The measure of effect used was the standardized mean difference (SMD) in depression levels. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. The initial search included 806 articles without duplications. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included in the final systematic review. Of these, 9 were included in the meta-analysis, where it was shown a statistically significant in all axis I groups: (a) global TMD-groups I, II and III combined, N = 3829, SMD (95% CI) = 1.06 (0.65-1.51), p = 0.000; (b) group I-muscle disorders, N = 3,056, SMD (95% CI) = 0.82 (0.45-1.18), p = 0.000; (c) group II-disc displacements, N = 3,184, SMD (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.26-0.91), p = 0.000; and (d) group III-arthralgia/arthritis/arthrosis, N = 2781, SMD (95% CI) = 0.98 (0.59-1.36), p = 0.000. When compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life is affected in all axis I TMD patients, especially in groups I and III with higher pain intensity and disability as compared to group II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".