Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a highly misreported health problem. Its diagnosis is complex and requires the use of valid and reliable instruments. Objective To develop and validate the Epidemiological Diagnostic Instrument for TMD (EDI/TMD). Methods Content validity (CV), response process (RP), construct validity (EFA), reliability (inter and intraobserver consistency), and convergence validity of the EDI/TMD were assessed and compared to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD). Results An instrument composed of a 9‐question questionnaire and a 12‐step clinical protocol was developed. CV analysis reduced the instrument to a 5‐question and 7‐step clinical protocol (CVI = 0.93). Some instructions were included after the RP. The EFA found three factors: myogenous TMD, arthrogenous TMD, and differential diagnosis. The reliability scores ranged from substantial to excellent. When compared to the DC/TMD, the EDI/TMD total score indicated that this instrument is valid and provides satisfactory diagnostic criteria (Kappa = 0.906; p < 0.001), and can distinguish non‐TMD and TMD individuals, with a cut‐off point of 4.9 (Sensitivity = 1.0; Specificity = 1.0; AUC = 1.0). For individuals who had both myogenous and arthrogenous TMD, the cut‐off point was 14 or higher (Sensitivity = 0.8; Specificity = 1.0; AUC = 0.987). For individuals who had either myogenous TMD (Sensitivity = 1.0; Specificity = 0.88; PPV = 0.89; NPV = 1.0) or arthrogenous TMD (Sensitivity = 0.95; Specificity = 0.87; PPV = 0.83; NPV = 0.96), the cut‐off point was between 5 and 13.9, with the highest EFA score being the determinant factor for final diagnosis. Conclusion Based on its psychometric properties, the EDI/TMD is a valid and reliable assessment tool that is capable of diagnosing TMD and classifying its subtypes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borges et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: