MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304842937 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.990430

Association between temporomandibular disorders and anxiety: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4304842937 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erick Alves dos Santos, Beatriz Rodrigues Risuenho Peinado, Déborah Ribeiro Frazão, Yago Gecy de Sousa Né, Nathália Carolina Fernandes Fagundes, Marcela Baraúna Magno, Lucianne Cople Maia, Rafael Rodrigues Lima, Renata Duarte de Souza‐Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversidade Federal do ParáUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAnxietyScopusObservational studyMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEGrading (engineering)Clinical psychologyInclusion and exclusion criteriaPsychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction (TMD) is an umbrella term that includes musculoskeletal and neuromuscular conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint. The present systematic review aimed to verify whether there is a specific association between TMD and anxiety. The searches were carried out in electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS, without restrictions on publication date and language. The acronym PECO was used, whose participants (P) were humans exposed to TMD (E), compared to participants without TMD (C) and the presence of anxiety as an outcome (O). After the search retrieval, the duplicates were removed, and the articles were evaluated by title and abstract, following our inclusion and exclusion criteria; then, the papers were read and thoroughly assessed. After selection, the methodological quality was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the level of evidence. A total of 710 studies were found, and 33 articles were considered eligible and were included for the qualitative synthesis and the level of evidence assessment. The studies confirmed the association between anxiety and DTM, although there was a low certainty of evidence among the selected studies. Most articles showed a low risk of bias. Although the limitations of this systematic review, it suggested a significant association between anxiety and TMD, as well as highlights possible directions for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207