↓ Skip to main content

Comorbidity negatively influences the outcomes of diagnostic tests for musculoskeletal pain in the orofacial region

Overview of attention for article published in Pain (03043959)
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comorbidity negatively influences the outcomes of diagnostic tests for musculoskeletal pain in the orofacial region
Published in
Pain (03043959)
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2013.03.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koutris, Michail, Visscher, Corine M., Lobbezoo, Frank, Naeije, Machiel

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether diagnostic tests for musculoskeletal pain in the orofacial region [temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain] are influenced by the presence of comorbid conditions, and to determine whether this influence decreases when the presence of "familiar pain" is used as outcome measure. In total, 117 patients (35 men, 82 women; 75 TMD-pain patients, 42 pain-free patients; mean age ± SD = 42.94 ± 14.17 years) were examined with palpation tests and dynamic/static tests. After each test, they were asked whether any pain was provoked and whether this pain response was familiar or not. For four clinical outcome measures (pain on palpation, familiar pain on palpation, pain on dynamic/static tests, and familiar pain on dynamic/static tests), multiple logistic regression analyses were performed with the presence of TMD pain as the primary predictor and regional (neck/shoulder) pain, widespread pain, depression, and somatization as comorbid factors. Pain on palpation was not associated with the primary predictor but with regional pain [P = 0.02, odds ratio (OR) = 4.59] and somatization (P = 0.011, OR = 8.47), whereas familiar pain on palpation was associated with the primary predictor (P = 0.003, OR = 5.23), but also with widespread pain (P = 0.001, OR = 2.02). Pain on dynamic/static tests was associated with the primary predictor (P < 0.001, OR = 11.08), but also with somatization (P = 0.037, OR = 4.5), whereas familiar pain on dynamic/static tests was only associated with the primary predictor (P < 0.001, OR = 32.37). In conclusion, diagnostic tests are negatively influenced by the presence of comorbidity. This influence decreases when the presence of familiar pain is used as outcome measure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 8%
Australia 1 4%
Spain 1 4%
Belgium 1 4%
Unknown 20 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Librarian 4 16%
Unspecified 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 64%
Unspecified 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%

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 20 May 2013.
All research outputs
#2,938,615
of 4,507,144 outputs
Outputs from Pain (03043959)
#1,811
of 2,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,113
of 90,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain (03043959)
#86
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,144 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 90,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.