Aims The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. Methods Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project—the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. Results The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self-report instrument sets. The screening instruments’ 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess i...

This research develops and evaluates a simple method of grading the severity of chronic pain for use in general population surveys and studies of primary care pain patients. Measures of pain intensity, disability, persistence and recency of onset were tested for their ability to grade chronic pain severity in a longitudinal study of primary care back pain (n = 1213), headache (n = 779) and temporomandibular disorder pain (n = 397) patients. A Guttman scale analysis showed that pain intensity and disability measures formed a reliable hierarchical scale. Pain intensity measures appeared to scale the lower range of global severity while disability measures appeared to scale the upper range of global severity. Recency of onset and days in pain in the prior 6 months did not scale with pain intensity or disability. Using simple scoring rules, pain severity was graded into 4 hierarchical classes: Grade I, low disability--low intensity; Grade II, low disability--high intensity; Grade III, high disability--moderately limiting; and Grade IV, high disability--severely limiting. For each pain site, Chronic Pain Grade measured at baseline showed a highly statistically significant and monotonically increasing relationship with unemployment rate, pain-related functional limitations, depression, fair to poor self-rated health, frequent use of opioid analgesics, and frequent pain-related doctor visits both at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Days in Pain was related to these variables, but not as strongly as Chronic Pain Grade. Recent onset cases (first onset within the prior 3 months) did not show differences in psychological and behavioral dysfunction when compared to persons with less recent onset. Using longitudinal data from a population-based study (n = 803), Chronic Pain Grade at baseline predicted the presence of pain in the prior 2 weeks. Chronic Pain Grade and pain-related functional limitations at 3-year follow-up. Grading chronic pain as a function of pain intensity and pain-related disability may be useful when a brief ordinal measure of global pain severity is required. Pain persistence, measured by days in pain in a fixed time period, provides useful additional information.

A survey concerning common pain conditions and psychological distress was carried out among a probability sample of the adult enrollees of a large health maintenance organization in Seattle. The prevalence of pain in the prior six months was 41% for back pain; 26% for headache; 17% for abdominal pain; 12% for chest pain; and 12% for facial pain. Headache, abdominal and facial pain were less prevalent among older persons and more prevalent among females. We examined the temporal dimensions of these pain conditions, as well as intensity, treatment seeking, and activity limitation. The pain conditions were typically long standing, recurrent, of mild to moderate intensity, and usually did not limit activities. However, depending on the pain condition, 9-40% reported one or more days in the prior six months when they were unable to carry out their usual activities due to the pain problem. On average, persons with a pain condition had higher levels of anxiety, depression, and non-pain somatic symptoms as measured by the scales of the Symptom Checklist (SCL); poorer self-rating of health status; and more family stress compared to persons without a pain condition. Of these alternative measures of distress, the SCL somatization scale had the strongest independent association with pain. The increments in measures of anxiety, depression, and family stress with the presence of pain were greatest among persons with higher levels of non-pain somatic symptoms.

No abstract

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients’ lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting “responder analyses” in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement. Perspective A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD), published in 1992, was based on international expert recommendations and available empirical data. The major rationale was to offer a putative diagnostic and classification system whose reliability, validity and clinical usefulness for TMD diagnosis and classification could be scientifically evaluated and then revised using an evidence-based model for successive iterations. The present journal issue attests to the accomplishment of that major objective: the RDC/TMD has been translated into 18 languages and used very extensively in international research. One important component of that research has been to yield reliable and valid data resulting in an evidence-based revision of the RDC/TMD now available for continuing research and clinical application. The present article offers recommendations and speculations regarding how the RDC/TMD may continue to serve the function of guiding future research and, most importantly, serve as an evidence-based diagnostic and classification system to aid in the rational choice of clinical care for TMD sufferers around the world.

Several studies have reported that musculoskeletal disorders of the stomatognathic system, commonly known as temporomandibular disorders (TMD) resemble musculoskeletal disorders and chronic pain disorders in general. There is also general consensus that combined biomedical and biopsychosocial methods best support the assessment and management of the cardinal features of TMD, i.e., pain and dysfunction or physical (peripheral) and psychosocial (central) factors. This overview of the aetiology of TMD will outline conceptualizations of past models and present the current view that patients with TMD should be assessed according to both the physical disorder and the psychosocial illness impact factors. The conceptual theories outlined in this review include biomedical models related to temporomandibular joints, muscles of mastication and occlusal factors, psychological models and the biopsychosocial models. An integrated and multidimensional approach concerning physical and psychosocial factors in temporomandibular pain and dysfunction is presented as an example of how the biopsychosocial model and information processing theory may apply in the conceptualization and management of TMD for various health care professionals.

In epidemiologic research on chronic pain, differentiation of recurrent, persistent and disabling pain states is critical in the investigation of burden, natural history, effective intervention and causal processes. We report population-based data concerning the development and evaluation of a graded classification of pain status. In a probability sample of 1016 health maintenance organization enrollees, recurrent or persistent pain was observed in 45%; severe and persistent pain in 8%; severe and persistent pain with 7 or more days of pain-related activity limitation in 2.7%; and severe, persistent pain with activity limitation and 3 or more indicators of pain dysfunction in 1.0% of the population sample. Graded chronic pain status was associated with psychological impairment, unfavorable appraisal of health status, and frequency of use of pain medications and health care. The presence of severe and persistent pain increased the likelihood of multiple indicators of pain dysfunction, but there was considerable heterogeneity in pain dysfunction among persons with comparable pain experience. Our data suggest grading chronic pain in terms of 3 axes: time (persistence); severity; and impact (disability and dysfunctional illness behaviors).