Prevalence of orofacial pain in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This systematic review investigated the prevalence of orofacial pain in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Materials and methods The search was conducted in five databases (Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and LILACS), in three grey literature sources and in included articles' reference lists. Three independent reviewers performed study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Institutes of Health tool. Prevalence was calculated using the random‐effects model. Subgroup analysis and meta‐regression were used to explore the heterogeneity of results. Results The database and grey literature search led to 12 246 results, from which nine studies were included; a further four were selected through citation searching. The total sample comprised 6115 patients with dementia and 84 with MCI. All studies had high risk of bias. The overall estimated pooled prevalence of orofacial pain among dementia participants was 19.0% (95% CI, 11.0%‐27.0%; I 2 , 97.1%, P < .001). Only one study included MCI participants, among which the prevalence of orofacial pain was 20.5%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the different sources of diagnosis might explain the heterogeneity. A higher prevalence of orofacial pain was observed in dementia participants aged over 80 years or living in nursing homes. Meta‐regression analysis showed a nonlinear relationship between age and the prevalence of orofacial pain. Conclusions The pooled data from the primary studies revealed that 2 out of 10 patients with dementia have orofacial pain. Further research is needed to clarify the magnitude in individuals with MCI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".