Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 699

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD): development of image analysis criteria and examiner reliability for image analysis

Open access
Ahmad, Mansur, Hollender, Lars, Anderson, Quentin, Kartha, Krishnan, Ohrbach, Richard, Truelove, Edmond L., John, Mike T., Schiffman, Eric L.·2009·Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology

Abstract

Introduction As a part of a multi-site RDC/TMD Validation Project, comprehensive TMJ diagnostic criteria were developed for image analysis using panoramic radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT). Methods Inter-examiner reliability was estimated using the kappa (k) statistic, and agreement between rater pairs was characterized by overall, positive, and negative percent agreement. CT was the reference standard for assessing validity of other imaging modalities for detecting osteoarthritis (OA). Results For the radiological diagnosis of OA, reliability of the three examiners was poor for panoramic radiography (k = 0.16), fair for MRI (k = 0.46), and close to the threshold for excellent for CT (k = 0.71). Using MRI, reliability was excellent for diagnosing disc displacements (DD) with reduction (k = 0.78) and for DD without reduction (k = 0.94), and was good for effusion (k = 0.64). Overall percent agreement for pair-wise ratings was ≥ 82% for all conditions. Positive percent agreement for diagnosing OA was 19% for panoramic radiography, 59% for MRI, and 84% for CT. Using MRI, positive percent agreement for diagnoses of any DD was 95% and for effusion was 81%. Negative percent agreement was ≥ 88% for all conditions. Compared to CT, panoramic radiography and MRI had poor to marginal sensitivity, respectively, but excellent specificity, in detecting OA. Conclusion Comprehensive image analysis criteria for RDC/TMD Validation Project were developed, which can reliably be employed for assessing OA using CT, and for disc position and effusion using MRI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.02.023

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 699

Metadata

Authors
Ahmad, M., Hollender, L., Anderson, Q., Kartha, K., Ohrbach, R., Truelove, E. L., John, M. T., & Schiffman, E. L.
Venue
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-06
Volume
107
Issue
6
Pages
844-860
ISSN
1079-2104 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007025588
Cited by
699
References
40
FWCI
32.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD): development of image analysis criteria and examiner reliability for image analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.02.023
The paper
Ahmad, M., Hollender, L., Anderson, Q., Kartha, K., Ohrbach, R., Truelove, E. L., John, M. T., & Schiffman, E. L. (2009). Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD): development of image analysis criteria and examiner reliability for image analysis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.02.023

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.