Schiffman Eric L, Ohrbach Richard, Truelove Edmond L, Tai Feng, Anderson Gary C, Pan Wei, Gonzalez Yoly M, John Mike T, Sommers Earl, List Thomas, Velly Ana M, Kang Wenjun, Look John O
Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
J Orofac Pain. 2010 Winter;24(1):63-78.
To derive reliable and valid revised Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms for clinical TMD diagnoses.
The multisite RDC/TMD Validation Project's dataset (614 TMD community and clinic cases, and 91 controls) was used to derive revised algorithms for Axis I TMD diagnoses. Validity of diagnostic algorithms was assessed relative to reference standards, the latter based on consensus diagnoses rendered by two TMD experts using criterion examination data, including temporomandibular joint imaging. Cutoff points for target validity were sensitivity > or = 0.70 and specificity > or = 0.95. Reliability of revised algorithms was assessed in 27 study participants.
Revised algorithm sensitivity and specificity exceeded the target levels for myofascial pain (0.82, 0.99, respectively) and myofascial pain with limited opening (0.93, 0.97). Combining diagnoses for any myofascial pain showed sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 1.00. For joint pain, target sensitivity and specificity were observed (0.92, 0.96) when arthralgia and osteoarthritis were combined as "any joint pain." Disc displacement without reduction with limited opening demonstrated target sensitivity and specificity (0.80, 0.97). For the other disc displacement diagnoses, osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis, sensitivity was below target (0.35 to 0.53), and specificity ranged from 0.80 to meeting target. Kappa for revised algorithm diagnostic reliability was > or =0.63.
Revised RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnostic algorithms are recommended for myofascial pain and joint pain as reliable and valid. However, revised clinical criteria alone, without recourse to imaging, are inadequate for valid diagnosis of two of the three disc displacements as well as osteoarthritis and osteoarthrosis.
推导用于临床颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)诊断的可靠且有效的修订版颞下颌关节紊乱病研究诊断标准(RDC/TMD)轴I诊断算法。
多中心RDC/TMD验证项目的数据集(614例TMD社区和临床病例,以及91例对照)用于推导轴I TMD诊断的修订算法。相对于参考标准评估诊断算法的有效性,参考标准基于两名TMD专家使用包括颞下颌关节成像在内的标准检查数据做出的共识诊断。目标有效性的截断点为敏感性≥0.70且特异性≥0.95。在27名研究参与者中评估修订算法的可靠性。
修订算法的敏感性和特异性超过了肌筋膜疼痛(分别为0.82、0.99)和伴开口受限的肌筋膜疼痛(0.93、0.97)的目标水平。合并任何肌筋膜疼痛的诊断显示敏感性为0.91,特异性为1.00。对于关节疼痛,当将关节痛和骨关节炎合并为“任何关节疼痛”时,观察到目标敏感性和特异性(0.92、0.96)。伴开口受限的不可复性盘移位显示目标敏感性和特异性(0.80、0.97)。对于其他盘移位诊断、骨关节炎和骨关节病,敏感性低于目标(0.35至0.53),特异性范围为0.80至达到目标。修订算法诊断可靠性的Kappa值≥0.63。
推荐将修订后的RDC/TMD轴I TMD诊断算法用于肌筋膜疼痛和关节疼痛,因为它们可靠且有效。然而,仅靠修订后的临床标准,不借助影像学检查,不足以有效诊断三种盘移位中的两种以及骨关节炎和骨关节病。