Suppr超能文献

颞下颌关节紊乱病轴I研究诊断标准在临床和研究环境中的有效性。

Validity of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Axis I in clinical and research settings.

作者信息

Steenks Michel H, de Wijer Anton

机构信息

Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthodontics and Special Dental Care, Division Surgical Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Orofac Pain. 2009 Winter;23(1):9-16; discussion 17-27.

Abstract

The lack of standardized diagnostic criteria for defining clinical subtypes of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) was the main motive to create the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD), which were provided to allow standardization and replication of research into the most common forms of muscle- and joint-related TMD. The RDC/TMD offered improvement compared to the older literature: the use of one system classifying TMD subgroups and the introduction of a dual-axis classification. The aim of this Focus Article is to appraise the RDC/TMD Axis I (physical findings). Since the original publication in 1992, no modification of the RDC/TMD has taken place, although research has yielded important new findings. The article outlines several concerns, including diagnostic issues in Axis I, classification criteria, feasibility of palpation sites, the myofascial diagnostic algorithm, the lack of joint tests (compression, traction), and missing subgroups. Using a gold standard examiner may improve calibration and offer better reliability; it does not improve any of the diagnostic validity issues. It is also noted that in the 2004 mission statement of the International Consortium For RDC/TMD-Based Research, the RDC/TMD are also advocated for clinical settings. Clinicians may eagerly embrace the RDC/TMD, believing that the clinical use of the RDC/TMD as a diagnostic procedure is already supported by evidence, but its application is not indicated in clinical settings. The article concludes that given the research developments, there is a need to update the RDC/TMD Axis I in the clinical research setting.

摘要

颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)临床亚型缺乏标准化诊断标准,这是制定TMD研究诊断标准(RDC/TMD)的主要动机,该标准旨在实现对最常见的肌肉和关节相关TMD研究的标准化和可重复性。与早期文献相比,RDC/TMD有了改进:采用单一系统对TMD亚组进行分类,并引入了双轴分类法。本焦点文章旨在评估RDC/TMD第一轴(体格检查结果)。自1992年首次发表以来,尽管研究取得了重要的新发现,但RDC/TMD并未进行修改。本文概述了几个问题,包括第一轴的诊断问题、分类标准、触诊部位的可行性、肌筋膜诊断算法、缺乏关节检查(挤压、牵引)以及亚组缺失。使用金标准检查者可能会改善校准并提供更好的可靠性;但它并不能改善任何诊断有效性问题。文章还指出,在2004年基于RDC/TMD的国际研究联盟的使命声明中,RDC/TMD也被推荐用于临床环境。临床医生可能会热切接受RDC/TMD,认为RDC/TMD作为一种诊断程序的临床应用已经有证据支持,但在临床环境中并不推荐使用。文章得出结论,鉴于研究的发展,有必要在临床研究环境中更新RDC/TMD第一轴。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验