Headache Because of Problems with Teeth, Mouth, Jaws, or Dentures in Chronic Temporomandibular Disorder Patients: A Case–Control Study

Measurement Properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and Somatic Symptom Scale-8: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The subjective experience of somatic symptoms is a key concern throughout the health care system. Valid and clinically useful instruments are needed.

Objective

To evaluate the measurement properties of 2 widespread patient-reported outcomes: the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8).

Data Sources

Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were last searched February 1, 2024.

Study Selection

English-language studies reporting estimates pertaining to factor analysis, taxometric analysis, internal consistency, construct validity, mean scores in relevant groups, cutoffs, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs), minimal clinically important difference, test-retest reliability, or sensitivity to change.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Search hits were reviewed by independent raters. Cronbach α, Pearson r, means, and between-group effect sizes indicative of sensitivity to change were pooled in random-effects meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using 3 instruments. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comprehensive overview of evidence pertaining to the measurement properties of the PHQ-15 and SSS-8.

Results

A total of 305 studies with 361 243 participants were included. Most concerned routine care (178 studies) and the general population (27 studies). In factor analyses, both scales reflected a combination of domain-specific factors (cardiopulmonary, fatigue, gastrointestinal, pain) and a general symptom burden factor. The pooled PHQ-15 α was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.80-0.82), but with low item-total correlations for items concerning menstrual problems, fainting spells, and sexual problems (item-total correlations <0.40), and the SSS-8 α was 0.80 (0.77-0.83). Pooled correlations with other measures of somatic symptom burden were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.78) for the PHQ-15 and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for the SSS-8. Reported AUROCs for identification of somatoform disorders ranged from 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.76) to 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.85) for the PHQ-15 and from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.77) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76) for the SSS-8. The minimal clinically important difference on both scales was 3 points. Test-retest reliability could not be pooled and was inconsistent for the PHQ-15 (PHQ-15: r = 0.65-0.93; ICC, 0.87; SSS-8: r = 0.996, ICC = 0.89). The PHQ-15 showed tentative sensitivity to change (g = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08-0.56), but data for the SSS-8 were lacking.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, findings supported use of the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 for the assessment of symptom burden, but users should be aware of the complex, multifactorial structures of these scales. More evidence is needed concerning longitudinal measurement properties.

Etiologic Factors of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review of Literature Containing Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) from 2018 to 2022

This study aims to conduct a systematic analysis of literature published between 1 January 2018 and 1 September 2022, exploring factors influencing the progression or development of temporomandibular disorders (TMD), diagnosed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) or Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). Three electronic databases were reviewed to identify papers that examined TMD factors using DC/TMD or RDC/TMD. Inclusion criteria encompassed original research published in English between 1 January 2018 and 1 October 2022, online, and complete DC/TMD or RDC/TMD studies on human participants aged 18 or older. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Analytical cross-sectional studies' Critical Appraisal Tool. Of 1478 articles, 11 were included. The studies revealed strong associations between TMD and factors such as female, poor sleep quality, depression, oral parafunction, anxiety, somatization, and anatomical features. However, variables such as education, living conditions, socioeconomic status, marital status, chronic pain, and stress did not exhibit statistically significant correlations. Based on the obtained data, it can be concluded that the causes of TMD are largely related to psychological factors, which supports the biopsychosocial theory of the disorder.

Craniofacial disorders and headaches. A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Craniofacial- and headache disorders are common co-morbid disorders. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the research discussing craniofacial pain, especially temporomandibular disorders, and its relationship and impact on headaches, as well as suggestions for diagnostic assessment tools and physical therapeutic management strategies.

METHOD

A narrative structured review was performed. A search was conducted in MEDLINE using terms related to craniofacial pain and headaches. Additionally, papers regarding this topic were also extracted from the authors' personal libraries. Any study design (i.e., RCT, observational studies, systematic review, narrative review) that reported the concepts of interest was included, using Covidence. Results were narratively synthesized and described.

RESULTS

From an epidemiological perspective, craniofacial pain and headaches are strongly related and often co-existing. This may be due to the neuroanatomical connection with the trigeminal cervical complex, or due to shared predisposing factors such as age, gender, and psychosocial factors. Pain drawings, questionnaires, and physical tests can be used to determine the cause of pain, as well as other perpetuating factors in patients with headaches and craniofacial pain. The evidence supports different forms of exercise and a combination of hands-on and hands-off strategies aimed at both the craniofacial pain as well as the headache.

CONCLUSION

Headaches may be caused or aggravated by different disorders in the craniofacial region. Proper use of terminology and classification may help in understanding these complaints. Future research should look into the specific craniofacial areas and how headaches may arise from problems from those regions. (249 words).