Diagnostic accuracy of the short-form Fonseca Anamnestic Index in relation to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders

Yap, Adrian Ujin; Zhang, Min-Juan; Lei, Jie; Fu, Kai‐Yuan

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.016

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the TMD and headache screening instruments, the studies found in the literature [42,43,46,47,54] described the criterion validity adequately. One can argue that measurement properties such as internal consistency and responsiveness for PROMs with discriminative purposes (focused on signs and symptoms) are not applicable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the FAI showed a poor specificity performance [45]. A short-form version of the FAI (SFAI), including five questions, was tested and showed the better performance to detect myogenous TMD cases according to RDC/TMD [46] and overall TMD diagnoses according to DC/TMD [47].…”

Section: Short-form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (Sfai)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scoring: The items were scored on a three-point response scale (no = 0 point, sometimes = 5 points, and yes = 10 points). The final score is obtained by summing up the score of each question [46,47]. The score ranges between 0 to 50 points.…”

Section: Practical Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firstly, the SFAI accuracy in detecting TMD cases was tested against the RDC/TMD [46] and showed high accuracy to detect myogenous TMD (area under the curve of 0.97), with a better cutoff score of 17.5 points (PPV = 94.20 and PNV = 99.70). One additional study investigated the accuracy of the SFAI score to detect DC/TMD cases and reported accuracy values of 0.97 (any TMD diagnoses), 0.99 for pain-related TMD diagnoses, and 0.97 for TMD joint conditions [47]. The PPV and NPV are described in Table 8.…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Translation and measurement properties of the FAI are described in the literature in five different languages. However, for the SFAI, just two studies [46,47] reported the measurement properties of the SFAI. Considering that the FAI score did not show acceptable diagnostic accuracy, future studies must focus on the measurement properties of the SFAI rather than the FAI.…”

Section: Measurement Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches: Summary of Measurement Properties and Applicability

Aguiar

Carrer

Lira

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are available in the literature to support the evaluation and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders and headaches. However, clinicians and researchers usually complain that they had no education on PROMs and low overall knowledge about PROMs. Objective: This study aimed to summarize, describing the measurement properties and clinical applicability of the main condition-specific PROMs available in the literature to the assessment of patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches. Methods: The current manuscript reviewed 10 PROMs commonly used in the field. Four instruments about functioning and disability: 1. Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), 2. Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI), 3. 8-item and 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), and 4. Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale (MOPDS). Two instruments about headache-related disability: 5. Headache-Related Disability Index (HDI) and 6. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Three instruments focused on TMD and headache screening: 7. 3Q/TMD, 8. Short-Form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (SFAI), 9. Headache Screening Questionnaire. In addition, one instrument about maladaptive beliefs regarding pain and injury: 10. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD). Conclusions: The knowledge about the limitations and applicability of the PROMs commonly used to assess TMDs and Headaches can help clinicians and researchers to obtain reliable and valid outcomes to support the decision-making process. The current review recognizes the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in research and clinical practice. However, our findings call the attention that further studies on the measurement properties of such instruments are imperative.

show abstract