How dental teams can help patients with temporomandibular disorders receive general dental care: An International Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) find it difficult to undergo dental care due to challenges caused by their condition, previous temporomandibular joint surgery or invasive dental procedures, and the impact of comorbid conditions. Managing routine dental care for some patients with TMD can be seen as challenging by some dental practitioners. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to work with patients experiencing TMD and clinicians to co-produce recommendations aimed at helping general dentists to provide routine dental care for patients with TMD. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to co-produce recommendations. Six patients experiencing TMD, patient advocates and seven clinicians took part, including international TMD clinicians. Two meetings were held with patient participants, mediated by a trained facilitator. Recommendations suggested by patient participants were distributed to clinicians who were asked to add additional suggestions, but not to modify patients' recommendations unless to aid clarity. Additional themes were identified from the existing literature, and the recommendations were then reviewed by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM) consortium. RESULTS: Recommendations were given to support patients before, during and after dental treatment. Participants identified specific and practical recommendations to help patients with TMD receive routine dental care, but also emphasised the need for professionals to listen sensitively to patients' concerns and work with patients in an empathetic and non-judgmental way. CONCLUSION: These recommendations, co-developed with patients experiencing TMD, should help dental professionals to provide supportive general dental care for patients with TMD.

Relationships Between Temporomandibular Disorders, MSD Conditions, and Mental Health Comorbidities: Findings from the Veterans Musculoskeletal Disorders Cohort.

Objective: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have been associated with other chronic painful conditions (e.g., fibromyalgia, headache) and suicide and mood disorders. Here we examined musculoskeletal, painful, and mental health comorbidities in men vs women veterans with TMD (compared with non-TMD musculoskeletal disorders [MSDs] cases), as well as comorbidity patterns within TMD cases. Design: Observational cohort. Setting: National Veterans Health Administration. Subjects: A cohort of 4.1 million veterans having 1+ MSDs, entering the cohort between 2001 and 2011. Methods: Chi-square tests, t tests, and logistic regression were utilized for cross-sectional analysis. Results: Among veterans with any MSD, those with TMD were younger and more likely to be women. The association of TMD with race/ethnicity differed by sex. Odds of TMD were higher in men of Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.27-1.48) and nonwhite race/ethnicity other than black or Hispanic (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.16-1.45) compared with white men. Odds of TMD were significantly lower for black (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.49-0.60) and Hispanic women (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.73-0.995) relative to white women. Non-MSD comorbidities (e.g., irritable bowel syndrome, mental health, headaches) were significantly associated with TMD in male veterans; their pattern was similar in women. Veterans with back pain, nontraumatic joint disorder, or osteoarthritis had more MSD multimorbidity than those with TMD. Conclusions: Complex patterns of comorbidity in TMD cases may indicate different underlying mechanisms of association in subgroups or phenotypes, thereby suggesting multiple targets to improve TMD. Longitudinal comprehensive studies powered to look at sex and racial/ethnic groupings are needed to identify targets to personalize care.

Focus Groups to Inform the Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) for Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMDs).

BACKGROUND: Understanding symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) can help doctors and patients document, monitor, and manage the disease and help researchers evaluate interventions. Patients with TMDs experience symptoms ranging from mild to severe, primarily in the head and neck region. This study describes findings from formative patient focus groups to capture, categorize, and prioritize symptoms of TMDs towards the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). METHODS: We conducted ten focus groups with 40 men and women with mild, moderate, and severe TMD. Focus groups elicited descriptions of symptoms and asked participants to review a list of existing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the literature and patient advisor input and speak to how those PROs reflect their own experience, including rating their importance. RESULTS: We identified 52 distinct concepts across six domains: somatic, physical, social, sexual, affective, and sleep. Focus groups identified the ability to chew and eat; clicking, popping, and other jaw noises; jaw pain and headaches; jaw misalignment or dislocation; grinding, clenching, or chewing, including at night; and ear sensations as most important. Participants with severe TMDs more often reported affective concepts like depression and shame than did participants with mild or moderate TMDs. CONCLUSION: Findings support PROM item development for TMDs, including selecting existing PROMs or developing new ones that reflect patients' lived experiences, priorities, and preferred terminology. Such measures are needed to increase understanding of TMDs, promote accurate diagnosis and effective treatment, and help advance research on TMDs.

Patients with temporomandibular joint disorders, or TMDs, have pain and other problems in their jaw, and face and neck areas. We talked to 40 patients with mild, moderate, and severe TMDs to learn about their symptoms. We also asked patients to review a list of TMD symptoms. They then chose the most important ones based on their experience. The data showed 52 TMD symptoms and functions across six domains. The patients chose the ability to chew and eat; clicking, popping, and other jaw noises; and jaw pain and headaches as most important. They also chose jaw misalignment or dislocation; grinding, clenching, or chewing, including at night; and ear feelings as important. Findings support creating patient-reported outcome measures, or PROMs, for TMDs. These PROMs should reflect patients' experiences and what is most important to them. Such measures can help doctors treat TMDs and help advance research on TMDs.

Building the foundation for a modern patient-partnered infrastructure to study temporomandibular disorders.

Background: Conflicting reports from varying stakeholders related to prognosis and outcomes following placement of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants gave rise to the development of the TMJ Patient-Led RoundTable initiative. Following an assessment of the current availability of data, the RoundTable concluded that a strategically Coordinated Registry Network (CRN) is needed to collect and generate accessible data on temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and its care. The aim of this study was therefore to advance the clinical understanding, usage, and adoption of a core minimum dataset for TMD patients as the first foundational step toward building the CRN. Methods: Candidate data elements were extracted from existing data sources and included in a Delphi survey administered to 92 participants. Data elements receiving less than 75% consensus were dropped. A purposive multi-stakeholder sub-group triangulated the items across patient and clinician-based experience to remove redundancies or duplicate items and reduce the response burden for both patients and clinicians. To reliably collect the identified data elements, the identified core minimum data elements were defined in the context of technical implementation within High-performance Integrated Virtual Environment (HIVE) web-application framework. HIVE was integrated with CHIOS™, an innovative permissioned blockchain platform, to strengthen the provenance of data captured in the registry and drive metadata to record all registry transaction and create a robust consent network. Results: A total of 59 multi-stakeholder participants responded to the Delphi survey. The completion of the Delphi surveys followed by the application of the required group consensus threshold resulted in the selection of 397 data elements (254 for patient-generated data elements and 143 for clinician generated data elements). The infrastructure development and integration of HIVE and CHIOS™ was completed showing the maintenance of all data transaction information in blockchain, flexible recording of patient consent, data cataloging, and consent validation through smart contracts. Conclusion: The identified data elements and development of the technological platform establishes a data infrastructure that facilitates the standardization and harmonization of data as well as perform high performance analytics needed to fully leverage the captured patient-generated data, clinical evidence, and other healthcare ecosystem data within the TMJ/TMD-CRN.

Advancing the Real-World Evidence for Medical Devices through Coordinated Registry Networks.

Objectives: Generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) is a pragmatic solution for evaluating health technologies. RWE is recognized by regulators, health technology assessors, clinicians, and manufacturers as a valid source of information to support their decision-making. Well-designed registries can provide RWE and become more powerful when linked with electronic health records and administrative databases in coordinated registry networks (CRNs). Our objective was to create a framework of maturity of CRNs and registries, so guiding their development and the prioritization of funding. Design setting and participants: We invited 52 stakeholders from diverse backgrounds including patient advocacy groups, academic, clinical, industry and regulatory experts to participate on a Delphi survey. Of those invited, 42 participated in the survey to provide feedback on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries. An expert panel reviewed the responses to refine the framework until the target consensus of 80% was reached. Two rounds of the Delphi were distributed via Qualtrics online platform from July to August 2020 and from October to November 2020. Main outcome measures: Consensus on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries consisted of seven domains (unique device identification, efficient data collection, data quality, product life cycle approach, governance and sustainability, quality improvement, and patient-reported outcomes), each presented with five levels of maturity. Results: Of 52 invited experts, 41 (79.9%) responded to round 1; all 41 responded to round 2; and consensus was reached for most domains. The expert panel resolved the disagreements and final consensus estimates ranged from 80.5% to 92.7% for seven domains. Conclusions: We have developed a robust framework to assess the maturity of any CRN (or registry) to provide reliable RWE. This framework will promote harmonization of approaches to RWE generation across different disciplines and health systems. The domains and their levels may evolve over time as new solutions become available.

Methods to identify and prioritize patient-centered outcomes for use in comparative effectiveness research.

BACKGROUND: We used various methods for identifying and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER). METHODS: We considered potential PCOs ("benefits" and "harms") related to (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. Part 1 (April 2014 to March 2015): we searched for PCO research and core outcome sets (COSs). We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases and key websites and examined FDA prescribing information and reports of clinical trials and systematic reviews. We asked patient and clinician co-investigators to identify PCOs. Part 2 (not part of our original study protocol): in 2015, we surveyed members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., a patient group associated with temporomandibular disorders (4130 invitations sent). Participants prioritized (1) the importance of six potential benefits and (2) 21 potential harms selected by the investigators in part 1, using stated preference methods. We calculated descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In part 1, we identified a COS for pain, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations. The COS identified several important benefits, but it lacked specific recommendations about which potential harms to include in CER. We did not identify a COS for bipolar depression. Research reports, prescribing information, and patient co-investigators helped identify but not prioritize outcomes. We abandoned our electronic search for PCO research because we found it would be resource-intensive and yield few relevant reports. In part 2, surveying patients was useful for prioritizing PCOs. Members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., completed the survey (N = 746) and successfully prioritized both benefits and harms. Participants did not identify many benefits other than those we identified in part 1; several participants identified additional harms. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory results could inform future research about identifying and prioritizing PCOs. We found that stakeholder co-investigators and research reports contributed to identifying PCOs; surveying a patient group contributed to prioritizing PCOs. Prioritizing potential harms was particularly challenging because there are many more potential harms than potential benefits. Methods for identifying and prioritizing potential benefits for CER might not be appropriate for harms. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these results.

Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine whether disagreements among multiple data sources affect systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible RCTs examined gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression, reported in public (e.g., journal articles) and nonpublic sources (clinical study reports [CSRs] and individual participant data [IPD]). RESULTS: We found 21 gabapentin RCTs (74 reports, 6 IPD) and 7 quetiapine RCTs (50 reports, 1 IPD); most were reported in journal articles (18/21 [86%] and 6/7 [86%], respectively). When available, CSRs contained the most trial design and risk of bias information. CSRs and IPD contained the most results. For the outcome domains "pain intensity" (gabapentin) and "depression" (quetiapine), we found single trials with 68 and 98 different meta-analyzable results, respectively; by purposefully selecting one meta-analyzable result for each RCT, we could change the overall result for pain intensity from effective (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.63 to -0.27) to ineffective (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.12). We could change the effect for depression from a medium effect (SMD = -0.55; 95% CI: -0.85 to -0.25) to a small effect (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements across data sources affect the effect size, statistical significance, and interpretation of trials and meta-analyses.

Somatic Cough Syndrome (Previously Referred to as Psychogenic Cough) and Tic Cough (Previously Referred to as Habit Cough) in Adults and Children: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review on the management of psychogenic cough, habit cough, and tic cough to update the recommendations and suggestions of the 2006 guideline on this topic. METHODS: We followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on data from the systematic review, patients' values and preferences, and the clinical context. Final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review revealed only low-quality evidence to support how to define or diagnose psychogenic or habit cough with no validated diagnostic criteria. With respect to treatment, low-quality evidence allowed the committee to only suggest therapy for children believed to have psychogenic cough. Such therapy might consist of nonpharmacologic trials of hypnosis or suggestion therapy, or combinations of reassurance, counseling, and referral to a psychologist, psychotherapy, and appropriate psychotropic medications. Based on multiple resources and contemporary psychologic, psychiatric, and neurologic criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and tic disorder guidelines), the committee suggests that the terms psychogenic and habit cough are out of date and inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the major change in suggestions is that the terms psychogenic and habit cough be abandoned in favor of somatic cough syndrome and tic cough, respectively, even though the evidence to do so at this time is of low quality.

Assessment of Intervention Fidelity and Recommendations for Researchers Conducting Studies on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Cough in the Adult: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Successful management of chronic cough has varied in the primary research studies in the reported literature. One of the potential reasons relates to a lack of intervention fidelity to the core elements of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic interventions that were meant to be used by the investigators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence supporting intervention fidelity as an important methodologic consideration in assessing the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines used for the diagnosis and management of chronic cough. We developed and used a tool to assess for five areas of intervention fidelity. Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1998 to May 2014. Guideline recommendations and suggestions for those conducting research using guidelines or protocols to diagnose and manage chronic cough in the adult were developed and voted upon using CHEST Organization methodology. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies (17 uncontrolled prospective observational, two randomized controlled, and four retrospective observational) met our inclusion criteria. These articles included 3,636 patients. Data could not be pooled for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. Findings related to the five areas of intervention fidelity included three areas primarily related to the provider and two primarily related to the patients. In the area of study design, 11 of 23 studies appeared to be underpinned by a single guideline/protocol; for training of providers, two of 23 studies reported training, and zero of 23 reported the use of an intervention manual; and for the area of delivery of treatment, when assessing the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, three of 23 studies appeared consistent with the most recent guideline/protocol referenced by the authors. For receipt of treatment, zero of 23 studies mentioned measuring concordance of patient-interventionist understanding of the treatment recommended, and zero of 23 mentioned measuring enactment of treatment, with three of 23 measuring side effects and two of 23 measuring adherence. The overall average intervention fidelity score for all 23 studies was poor (20.74 out of 48). CONCLUSIONS: Only low-quality evidence supports that intervention fidelity strategies were used when conducting primary research in diagnosing and managing chronic cough in adults. This supports the contention that some of the variability in the reporting of patients with unexplained or unresolved chronic cough may be due to lack of intervention fidelity. By following the recommendations and suggestions in this article, researchers will likely be better able to incorporate strategies to address intervention fidelity, thereby strengthening the validity and generalizability of their results that provide the basis for the development of trustworthy guidelines.

Temporomandibular disorders and associated clinical comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: Temporomandibular joint and muscle disorders (TMJD) are ill-defined, painful debilitating disorders. This study was undertaken to identify the spectrum of clinical manifestations based on self-report from affected patients. METHODS: A total of 1511 TMJD-affected individuals were recruited through the web-based registry of patients maintained by The TMJ Association, Ltd, a patient advocacy organization, and participated in the survey as well as 57 of their nonaffected friends. Results were also compared with US population for questions in common with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. RESULTS: The TMJD-affected individuals were on average 41 years of age and predominantly female (90%). Nearly 60% of both men and women reported recent pain of moderate-to-severe intensity with a quarter of them indicating interference or termination of work-related activities. In the case-control comparison, a higher frequency of headaches, allergies, depression, fatigue, degenerative arthritis, fibromyalgia, autoimmune disorders, sleep apnea, and gastrointestinal complaints were prevalent among those affected with TMJD. Many of the associated comorbid conditions were over 6 times more likely to occur after TMJD was diagnosed. Among a wide array of treatments used (46 listed), the most effective relief for most affected individuals (91%) was the use of thermal therapies--hot/cold packs to the jaw area or hot baths. Nearly 40% of individuals affected with TMJD patients reported one or more surgical procedures and nearly all were treated with one or many different medications. Results of these treatments were generally equivocal. Although potentially limited to the most severe TMJD affected individuals, the survey results provide a comprehensive dataset describing the clinical manifestations of TMJD. DISCUSSION: The data provide evidence that TMJD represent a spectrum of disorders with varying pathophysiologies, clinical manifestations, and associated comorbid conditions. The findings underscore the complex nature of TMJD, the need for more extensive interdisciplinary basic and clinical research, and the development of outcome-based strategies to more effectively diagnose, prevent, and treat these chronic, debilitating conditions.

Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness (dysphonia).

OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing hoarseness (dysphonia), defined as a disorder characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice-related quality of life (QOL). Hoarseness affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in their lives. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where hoarseness would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with hoarseness. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for hoarseness (dysphonia), reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate steroid use, reduce inappropriate use of anti-reflux medications, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of laryngoscopy, voice therapy, and surgery. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of neurology, speech-language pathology, professional voice teaching, family medicine, pulmonology, geriatric medicine, nursing, internal medicine, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pediatrics, and consumers. RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations that 1) the clinician should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat hoarseness and 2) the clinician should advocate voice therapy for patients diagnosed with hoarseness that reduces voice-related QOL. The panel made recommendations that 1) the clinician should diagnose hoarseness (dysphonia) in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice-related QOL; 2) the clinician should assess the patient with hoarseness by history and/or physical examination for factors that modify management, such as one or more of the following: recent surgical procedures involving the neck or affecting the recurrent laryngeal nerve, recent endotracheal intubation, radiation treatment to the neck, a history of tobacco abuse, and occupation as a singer or vocal performer; 3) the clinician should visualize the patient's larynx, or refer the patient to a clinician who can visualize the larynx, when hoarseness fails to resolve by a maximum of three months after onset, or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected; 4) the clinician should not obtain computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the patient with a primary complaint of hoarseness prior to visualizing the larynx; 5) the clinician should not prescribe anti-reflux medications for patients with hoarseness without signs or symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease; 6) the clinician should not routinely prescribe oral corticosteroids to treat hoarseness; 7) the clinician should visualize the larynx before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist; and 8) the clinician should prescribe, or refer the patient to a clinician who can prescribe, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of hoarseness caused by adductor spasmodic dysphonia. The panel offered as options that 1) the clinician may perform laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with hoarseness, or may refer the patient to a clinician who can visualize the larynx; 2) the clinician may prescribe anti-reflux medication for patients with hoarseness and signs of chronic laryngitis; and 3) the clinician may educate/counsel patients with hoarseness about control/preventive measures. DISCLAIMER: This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing hoarseness (dysphonia). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.