| Title |
Oral Dysesthesia Rating Scale: a tool for assessing psychosomatic symptoms in oral regions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-014-0359-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akihito Uezato, Akira Toyofuku, Yojiro Umezaki, Motoko Watanabe, Akira Toriihara, Makoto Tomita, Naoki Yamamoto, Akeo Kurumaji, Toru Nishikawa |
| Abstract |
BackgroundThe concept of cenesthopathy was first introduced by Dupré and Camus in 1907 to describe clinically unexplainable bodily sensations mainly attributed to psychiatric pathology. If it occurs in oral regions, it is termed oral cenesthopathy and it has been of special interest to psychiatrists and dentists. While there is no independently defined criteria for this condition, which is classified as either a delusional or a somatoform disorder, clinical practice and research require a standard scale to measure and rate its symptoms. In this study, we included any types of psychosomatic symptoms in oral regions as oral dysesthesia, and developed an Oral Dysesthesia Rating Scale (Oral DRS) and evaluated its validity and reliability as an assessment tool.MethodsThe scale was developed based on literature review and extensive clinical experience. Twelve reviewers assessed relevancy of each item to oral dysesthesia symptoms by 1¿4 scoring scale and item content validity index was computed. To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of Oral DRS, pairs of raters administered the scale to 40 randomly selected patients with complaints of oral dysesthesia symptoms and Cohen¿s weighted kappa coefficient was determined for each item.ResultsThe scale assesses the severity of feelings of foreign body [A1], exudation [A2], squeezing-pulling [A3], movement [A4], misalignment [A5], pain [A6], and spontaneous thermal sensation or tastes [A7], and the degree of impairment in eating [B1], articulation [B2], work [B3], and social activities [B4] on a scale of 0¿5. Items A1, A2, A3, A4, B3, and B4 demonstrated acceptable content validity. Inter-rater reliabilities were good or excellent for all items evaluated.ConclusionThe Oral DRS can help define the nosography of clinically unexplainable oral dysesthesia through further case evaluation and clinical research and facilitate devising of treatment modalities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 31% |
| Psychology | 8 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,387,239
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,871
of 4,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,811
of 353,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#70
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.