Cited by 15Temporomandibular Joint DisordersMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High Pain Intensity is a Risk Factor of Non-Resolving TMD: A Three-Year Follow-Up of a Patient Group in a Norwegian Interdisciplinary Evaluation Program

Open access
Staniszewski, Kordian, Willassen, Lisa, Berge, Trond, Johansson, Anders, Schjødt, Borrik, Rosèn, Annika·2022·Journal of Pain Research

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the outcome of patients with long-term refractory temporomandibular disorders (TMD) three years after a Norwegian interdisciplinary evaluation program with attention to patient satisfaction, function, pain, and psychosocial variables. Patients and Methods: The study population consisted of 60 long-term refractory TMD patients who were investigated by a Norwegian interdisciplinary team. A questionnaire that covered medical history, function, pain, lifestyle factors, TMD-status and follow-up from their general medical practitioner (GMP) was sent to the patients three years after the evaluation. Questionnaires that assessed function (Mandibular Functional Index Questionnaire [MFIQ] and Roland Morrison Scale [RMS]), pain intensity (General Pain Intensity questionnaire [GPI]) and psychosocial factors (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale [HADS]); a 2-item version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire [CSQ]) were included in the package. Results: Thirty-nine out of 60 TMD patients completed the questionnaires. Improvements in TMD symptoms were reported in 10 patients (26%), were unchanged in 16 patients (41%) and worsened in 13 patients (33%). Only 8 patients (21%) were satisfied with the follow-up of the suggested treatments from their GMP. Significant improvements of symptoms were noted in MFIQ (jaw function), GPI (including pain intensity at maximum and suffering from pain), and CSQ (pain related catastrophizing), in all 39 TMD patients as one group. However, a subgroup analysis showed that the significant improvements were mostly within patients who reported improvement of TMD symptoms. A high pain intensity at baseline was a significant risk factor (OR = 5 .79, 95% CI: 1.34, 24.96) for patients who reported worsening of TMD symptoms at follow-up. Conclusion: High pain intensity at baseline was a significant risk factor for poorer recovery three years after an interdisciplinary evaluation. Our data support the notion that improved coping with TMD pain includes both decreased pain intensity, CSQ and MFIQ scores. Keywords: catastrophizing, interdisciplinary, orofacial pain, refractory pain, stress, evaluation

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 · 10.2147/jpr.s341861

Cites

54 of 54 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Fricton, 2010, J Orofac Pain, 24, 139
  2. Berge, 2016, Den Nor Tann Tid, 126, 114
  3. Stegenga, 1993, J Orofac Pain, 7, 183
  4. Rosén, 2017, J Otolaryng Res, 1, 116
  5. Rammelsberg, 2003, J Orofac Pain, 17, 9
  6. Dworkin, 2002, J Orofac Pain, 16, 48

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 15

Metadata

Authors
Staniszewski, K., Willassen, L., Berge, T., Johansson, A., Schjødt, B., & Rosèn, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Staniszewski, Kordian
Venue
Journal of Pain Research
Published
2022-05
Volume
Volume 15
Pages
1283-1296
ISSN
1178-7090 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225275164
Cited by
12
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Helsedirektoratet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
temporomandibular disorders, pain intensity, risk factors, long-term outcomes, interdisciplinary analysis, pain catastrophizing, coping strategies, orofacial pain, jaw function, patient satisfaction, anxiety and depression, psychosocial factors

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