MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389781613 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076226

Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

2023· review· en· W4389781613 on OpenAlexafffund
Liang Yao, Behnam Sadeghirad, Meixuan Li, Jing Li, Qi Wang, Holly N. Crandon, Grace Martin, Rebecca L. Morgan, Iván D. Flórez, Birk Stokke Hunskaar, Jeffrey Wells, Sara Moradi, Ying Zhu, Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed, Ya Gao, Liujiao Cao, Kehu Yang, Jinhui Tian, Jialing Li, Linda L. D. Zhong, Rachel Couban, Gordon Guyatt, Thomas Agoritsas, Jason W. Busse

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersChronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian VeteransLanzhou UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyMeta-analysisPsychological interventionMEDLINEPlaceboRandomized controlled trialBlindingCINAHLManual therapySystematic reviewChronic painAdverse effectBiofeedbackPsychiatryAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial. RESULTS: 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty. CONCLUSION: When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021258567).

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0360.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations44
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207