Background: Physical therapy is regarded an effective treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Patients with TMD often report concomitant headache. There is, however, no overview of the effect of physical therapy for TMD on concomitant headache complaints. Objectives: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the literature on the effectiveness of physical therapy on concomitant headache pain intensity in patients with TMD. Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane and PEDro were searched. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized or controlled clinical trials studying physical therapy interventions were included. Participants: Patients with TMD and headache. Appraisal: The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Synthesis methods: Individual and pooled between-group effect sizes were calculated according to the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: and manual therapy on both orofacial region and cervical spine. There is a very low level of certainty that TMD-treatment is effective on headache pain intensity, downgraded by high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Limitations: The methodological quality of most included articles was poor, and the interventions included were very different. Conclusions: Physical therapy interventions presented small effect on reducing headache pain intensity on subjects with TMD, with low level of certainty. More studies of higher methodological quality are needed so better conclusions could be taken.
Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type.Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1,1).Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers.Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.
Background: In postoperative pain treatment patients are asked to rate their pain experience on a single uni-dimensional pain scale. Such pain scores are also used as indicator to assess the quality of pain treatment. However, patients may differ in how they interpret the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score. Objectives: This study examines how patients assign a number to their currently experienced postoperative pain and which considerations influence this process. Methods: A qualitative approach according to grounded theory was used. Twenty-seven patients were interviewed one day after surgery. Results: Three main themes emerged that influenced the Numeric Rating Scale scores (0–10) that patients actually reported to professionals: score-related factors, intrapersonal factors, and the anticipated consequences of a given pain score. Anticipated consequences were analgesic administration—which could be desired or undesired—and possible judgements by professionals. We also propose a conceptual model for the relationship between factors that influence the pain rating process. Based on patients’ score-related and intrapersonal factors, a preliminary pain score was ‘‘internally’’ set. Before reporting the pain score to the healthcare professional, patients considered the anticipated consequences (i.e., expected judgements by professionals and anticipation of analgesic administration) of current Numeric Rating Scale scores. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the process of how patients translate their current postoperative pain into a numeric rating score. The proposed model may help professionals to understand the factors that influence a given Numeric Rating Scale score and suggest the most appropriate questions for clarification. In this way, patients and professionals may arrive at a shared understanding of the pain score, resulting in a tailored decision regarding the most appropriate treatment of current postoperative pain, particularly the dosing and timing of opioid administration.
