↓ Skip to main content

Validity of functional diagnostic examination for temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Validity of functional diagnostic examination for temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction
Published in
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, February 2014
DOI 10.1111/joor.12130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marpaung, C. M., Kalaykova, S. I., Lobbezoo, F., Naeije, M.

Abstract

The choice of approach for diagnosing temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anterior disc displacement with reduction (ADDR), viz. functional examination or TMJ imaging, is debatable and complicated by findings of low agreement between these approaches. Our aim was to investigate the validity of functional ADDR diagnostics using clinical examination and opto-electronic mandibular movement recordings versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 53 participants (32 women and 21 men, mean age ± s.d. of 28.7 ± 10.1 years) underwent a clinical examination, mandibular movement recording and MRI of their TMJs within 1 month. All were performed and analysed in a single-blind design by different experienced examiners for each technique. The sensitivity and specificity of each functional diagnostic method was calculated, with MRI as the gold standard. Anterior disc displacement with reduction was diagnosed in 27.6% of the TMJs clinically, in 15.2% using the movement recordings and in 44.8% on MRI. The specificity of the clinical examination for diagnosing ADDR was 81.0%, and of the movement recordings, 96.6%. The sensitivity was 38.3% and 29.8%, respectively. The chance of having a false-positive functional diagnosis of ADDR compared with MRI is low, and disagreement between the functional methods and MRI is mainly due to the high number of MRI diagnoses in asymptomatic subjects. In view of the fact that ADDR becomes clinically relevant only when it interferes with TMJ function, the functional diagnostic approach can be considered benchmark in ADDR recognition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 2 5%
Germany 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 35 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Other 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 79%
Unspecified 2 5%
Psychology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,422,890
of 7,080,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#56
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,616
of 172,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,080,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 172,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.