RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Several patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are available in the literature to support the evaluation and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders and headaches. However, clinicians and researchers usually complain that they had no education on PROMs and low overall knowledge about PROMs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to summarize, describing the measurement properties and clinical applicability of the main condition-specific PROMs available in the literature to the assessment of patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches. METHODS: The current manuscript reviewed 10 PROMs commonly used in the field. Four instruments about functioning and disability: 1. Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), 2. Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI), 3. 8-item and 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), and 4. Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale (MOPDS). Two instruments about headache-related disability: 5. Headache-Related Disability Index (HDI) and 6. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Three instruments focused on TMD and headache screening: 7. 3Q/TMD, 8. Short-Form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (SFAI), 9. Headache Screening Questionnaire. In addition, one instrument about maladaptive beliefs regarding pain and injury: 10. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD). CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge about the limitations and applicability of the PROMs commonly used to assess TMDs and Headaches can help clinicians and researchers to obtain reliable and valid outcomes to support the decision-making process. The current review recognizes the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in research and clinical practice. However, our findings call the attention that further studies on the measurement properties of such instruments are imperative.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to empirically derive subgroups according to pain-related fear of movement beliefs using cluster analysis within a sample of TMD patients and asymptomatic volunteers. METHODS: 129 volunteers participated in this cross-sectional study (34.78, standard deviation [SD]: 12.49 years; 92 TMD patients and 37 symptom-free volunteers). Mechanical pain sensitivity through pressure pain threshold (PPT) on orofacial and remote sites, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety and depression were assessed. A cluster analysis was used to derive subgroups according to kinesiophobia scores (TSK/TMD). RESULTS: Three subgroups were derived: cluster 1 (high kinesiophobia [nâ¯=â¯53], TSK score: 33, SD[standard deviation]â¯=â¯2.9), cluster 2 (moderate kinesiophobia [nâ¯=â¯50], TSK score: 26.2, SDâ¯=â¯2.14) and cluster 3 (no/low kinesiophobia [nâ¯=â¯26], TSK score 12.12, SDâ¯=â¯2.08) which included patients with higher overall PPT and lower scores on psychosocial variables. The group with high kinesiophobia showed high levels of pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and orofacial pain-related disability compared to the other subgroups and mechanical pain hyperalgesia in remote site compared to the low-kinesiophobia group. Also, we found a greater prevalence of triple diagnosis for the high-kinesiophobia subgroup compared to the moderate kinesiophobia group - odds ratio: 12.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.31-43.52, pâ¯<â¯0.01). CONCLUSION: These results suggested that patients with TMD and higher levels of kinesiophobia beliefs may show a more complex clinical feature, with high psychosocial distress, widespread mechanical pain sensitivity, and a more complex TMD disorder. In this way, we suggest a relationship between the number of TMD diagnoses and kinesiophobia severity.