↓ 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), March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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), March 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2013.03.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Australia 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 55 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

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
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Pain (03043959)
#5,825
of 6,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,861
of 207,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain (03043959)
#83
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 207,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.