The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. VI: Future directions

Gary C. Anderson; Yoly M. Gonzalez; Richard Ohrbach; Edmond L. Truelove; Earl Sommers; John O. Look; Eric L. Schiffman

The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. VI: Future directions

Gary C. Anderson, Yoly M. Gonzalez, Richard Ohrbach, Edmond L. Truelove, Earl Sommers, John O. Look, Eric L. Schiffman

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project has provided the first comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity of the original Axis I and II. In addition, Axis I of the RDC/TMD was revised with estimates of reliability and validity. These findings are reported in the five preceding articles in this series. The aim of this article is to present further revisions of Axis I and II for consideration by the TMD research and clinical communities. Potential Axis I revisions include addressing concerns with orofacial pain differential diagnosis and changes in nomenclature in an attempt to provide improved consistency with other musculoskeletal diagnostic systems. In addition, expansion of the RDC/TMD to include the less common TMD conditions and disorders would make it more comprehensive and clinically useful. The original standards for diagnostic sensitivity (≤ 0.70) and specificity (≤ 0.95) should be reconsidered to reflect changes in the field since the RDC/TMD was published in 1992. Pertaining to Axis II, current recommendations for all chronic pain conditions include standardized instruments and expansion of the domains assessed. In addition, there is need for improved clinical efficiency of Axis II instruments and for exploring methods to better integrate Axis I and II in clinical settings.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	79-88
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Oral and Facial Pain and Headache
Volume	24
Issue number	1
State	Published - 2010

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors thank the following personnel of the RDC/TMD Validation Project: at the University of Minnesota, Mansur Ahmad, Quentin Anderson, Mary Haugan, Amanda Jackson, Wenjun Kang, Pat Lenton, Wei Pan, and Feng Tai; at the University at Buffalo, Leslie Garfinkel, Patricia Jahn, Krishnan Kartha, Sharon Michalovic, and Theresa Speers; and, at the University of Washington, Lars Hollender, Kimberly Huggins, Lloyd Mancl, Julie Sage, Kathy Scott, and Jeff Sherman. This study was supported by NIH/NIDCR U01-DE013331 and N01-DE-22635.

Publisher Copyright:
© Quintessece.

Keywords

Clinical utility
Diagnostic criteria
Nomenclature
Research
Temporomandibular disorders

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{7cefa5e6754c41bfadfbbc59f6a4a109,

title = "The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. VI: Future directions",

abstract = "The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project has provided the first comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity of the original Axis I and II. In addition, Axis I of the RDC/TMD was revised with estimates of reliability and validity. These findings are reported in the five preceding articles in this series. The aim of this article is to present further revisions of Axis I and II for consideration by the TMD research and clinical communities. Potential Axis I revisions include addressing concerns with orofacial pain differential diagnosis and changes in nomenclature in an attempt to provide improved consistency with other musculoskeletal diagnostic systems. In addition, expansion of the RDC/TMD to include the less common TMD conditions and disorders would make it more comprehensive and clinically useful. The original standards for diagnostic sensitivity (≤ 0.70) and specificity (≤ 0.95) should be reconsidered to reflect changes in the field since the RDC/TMD was published in 1992. Pertaining to Axis II, current recommendations for all chronic pain conditions include standardized instruments and expansion of the domains assessed. In addition, there is need for improved clinical efficiency of Axis II instruments and for exploring methods to better integrate Axis I and II in clinical settings.",

keywords = "Clinical utility, Diagnostic criteria, Nomenclature, Research, Temporomandibular disorders",

author = "Anderson, {Gary C.} and Gonzalez, {Yoly M.} and Richard Ohrbach and Truelove, {Edmond L.} and Earl Sommers and Look, {John O.} and Schiffman, {Eric L.}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors thank the following personnel of the RDC/TMD Validation Project: at the University of Minnesota, Mansur Ahmad, Quentin Anderson, Mary Haugan, Amanda Jackson, Wenjun Kang, Pat Lenton, Wei Pan, and Feng Tai; at the University at Buffalo, Leslie Garfinkel, Patricia Jahn, Krishnan Kartha, Sharon Michalovic, and Theresa Speers; and, at the University of Washington, Lars Hollender, Kimberly Huggins, Lloyd Mancl, Julie Sage, Kathy Scott, and Jeff Sherman. This study was supported by NIH/NIDCR U01-DE013331 and N01-DE-22635. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Quintessece.",

year = "2010",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "24",

pages = "79--88",

journal = "Journal of Oral and Facial Pain and Headache",

issn = "2333-0384",

publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. VI

T2 - Future directions

AU - Anderson, Gary C.

AU - Gonzalez, Yoly M.

AU - Ohrbach, Richard

AU - Truelove, Edmond L.

AU - Sommers, Earl

AU - Look, John O.

AU - Schiffman, Eric L.

N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank the following personnel of the RDC/TMD Validation Project: at the University of Minnesota, Mansur Ahmad, Quentin Anderson, Mary Haugan, Amanda Jackson, Wenjun Kang, Pat Lenton, Wei Pan, and Feng Tai; at the University at Buffalo, Leslie Garfinkel, Patricia Jahn, Krishnan Kartha, Sharon Michalovic, and Theresa Speers; and, at the University of Washington, Lars Hollender, Kimberly Huggins, Lloyd Mancl, Julie Sage, Kathy Scott, and Jeff Sherman. This study was supported by NIH/NIDCR U01-DE013331 and N01-DE-22635. Publisher Copyright: © Quintessece.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project has provided the first comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity of the original Axis I and II. In addition, Axis I of the RDC/TMD was revised with estimates of reliability and validity. These findings are reported in the five preceding articles in this series. The aim of this article is to present further revisions of Axis I and II for consideration by the TMD research and clinical communities. Potential Axis I revisions include addressing concerns with orofacial pain differential diagnosis and changes in nomenclature in an attempt to provide improved consistency with other musculoskeletal diagnostic systems. In addition, expansion of the RDC/TMD to include the less common TMD conditions and disorders would make it more comprehensive and clinically useful. The original standards for diagnostic sensitivity (≤ 0.70) and specificity (≤ 0.95) should be reconsidered to reflect changes in the field since the RDC/TMD was published in 1992. Pertaining to Axis II, current recommendations for all chronic pain conditions include standardized instruments and expansion of the domains assessed. In addition, there is need for improved clinical efficiency of Axis II instruments and for exploring methods to better integrate Axis I and II in clinical settings.

AB - The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Validation Project has provided the first comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity of the original Axis I and II. In addition, Axis I of the RDC/TMD was revised with estimates of reliability and validity. These findings are reported in the five preceding articles in this series. The aim of this article is to present further revisions of Axis I and II for consideration by the TMD research and clinical communities. Potential Axis I revisions include addressing concerns with orofacial pain differential diagnosis and changes in nomenclature in an attempt to provide improved consistency with other musculoskeletal diagnostic systems. In addition, expansion of the RDC/TMD to include the less common TMD conditions and disorders would make it more comprehensive and clinically useful. The original standards for diagnostic sensitivity (≤ 0.70) and specificity (≤ 0.95) should be reconsidered to reflect changes in the field since the RDC/TMD was published in 1992. Pertaining to Axis II, current recommendations for all chronic pain conditions include standardized instruments and expansion of the domains assessed. In addition, there is need for improved clinical efficiency of Axis II instruments and for exploring methods to better integrate Axis I and II in clinical settings.

KW - Clinical utility

KW - Diagnostic criteria

KW - Nomenclature

KW - Research

KW - Temporomandibular disorders

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77949879279&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77949879279&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 20213033

AN - SCOPUS:77949879279

SN - 2333-0384

VL - 24

SP - 79

EP - 88

JO - Journal of Oral and Facial Pain and Headache

JF - Journal of Oral and Facial Pain and Headache

IS - 1

ER -

The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. VI: Future directions

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this