A eficácia da terapia manual no tratamento de disfunções temporomandibulares: uma revisão sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Atualizar e sumariar a evidência científica encontrada na literatura que investigasse a efetividade da terapia manual na redução da dor em pacientes com disfunção temporomandibular (DTM). Metodologia: Revisão sistemática nas bases de dados Pubmed/Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, ScienceDirect e PEDro para identificar estudos de coorte prospetivos que avaliassem a eficácia da terapia manual na dor em indivíduos com DTM, publicados entre 2004 e 2014. A qualidade metodológica foi avaliada pela escala Newcastle-Ottawa e o nível de evidência pela escala Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Resultados: Foram incluídos 6 estudos, envolvendo 185 participantes (35.1 anos), com uma média de 3.8 na escala de Newcastle-Ottawa e os níveis de evidência foram 1b e 2c. Conclusão: A evidência encontrada nesta revisão sugere que a terapia manual parece ser eficaz na redução de dor em indivíduos com DTM, no entanto, salienta-se a necessidade de mais estudos.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".