Is low back pain a risk/prognostic factor for the development and/or progression of temporomandibular disorders? A systematic review with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between low back pain (LBP) and painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). METHODS: Systematic review of observational studies. Searches were conducted using OVID MEDLINE, CINHAL, Web of Science and PUBMED databases up to 21 October 2022. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS). RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the present review with meta-analysis. The first onset of TMDs was more likely in patients with previous chronic LBP (hazard ratio (HR) 1.53 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28; 1.83, p < .00001]). In addition, patients with chronic LBP had 3.25 times the odds (OR) [95% CI: 1.94; 5.43, p < .00001] of having chronic TMDs than those who did not have chronic LBP. In addition, the higher the exposure to chronic LBP, the higher the risk of developing a first onset of TMDs. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic LBP can be considered a risk/contributing factor for painful TMDs. Although there is a high certainty in the evidence linking chronic LBP with the risk of a first onset of TMDs, there are insufficient studies to draw definitive conclusions. Furthermore, while an association between chronic LBP and chronic TMDs and a dose-effect was observed between these two conditions, a limited number of studies and evidence exist to support these findings. Future studies are needed to increase the body of evidence.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".