Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for temporomandibular joint disorders using the AGREE II instrument
Abstract
Objective We sought to systematically assess the quality of all clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) describing diagnosis and management of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Study design CPGs detailing all aspects of diagnosis and management (both conservative and nonconservative) for TMDs were reviewed. Results Thirteen guidelines met inclusion criteria. The highest-scoring domain across guidelines was clarity of presentation (68.3%); the lowest-scoring domain was editorial independence (31.9%). The highest-scoring guideline described traditional Korean medicine approaches to the management of TMDs, earning a mean score of 79.2% across the six quality domains. Only three CPGs met a quality threshold of >60% in at least five domains, qualifying as 'high' per the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation criteria: these guidelines were the Korean medicine guidelines, Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) guidelines for diagnostic classification of TMDs, and the Japanese Society for the Temporomandibular Joint guidelines. An average intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79 was calculated across all domains, denoting very strong agreement between independent reviewers. Conclusion We identified a significant lack of quality in multiple areas of CPG development for the diagnosis and therapeutic management of TMDs, suggesting a need for new comprehensive and…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A systematic assessment of all temporomandibular disorder clinical practice guidelines published up to May 2020 found considerable deficits in development and reporting and concluded there was a need for rigorously developed guidelines.
“A systematic assessment of all clinical practice guidelines on diagnosis and management of TMD published up to May 2020, found considerable deficits in the development and reporting among each of them and concluded there was a need for rigorously developed guidelines.”
From Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Barrette, L.-X., Connolly, J., Romeo, D., Ng, J., Moreira, A. G., & Rajasekaran, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rajasekaran, Karthik
- ORCID
- Venue
- Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 402-411
- ISSN
- 2212-4403 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3210632087
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 0.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- temporomandibular disorders, guideline quality assessment, AGREE II instrument, diagnosis, traditional Korean medicine, RDC/TMD diagnostic criteria, interobserver agreement
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Temporomandibular Joint, Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Asian People
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review