AIM: To systematically review the available literature on the diagnostic accuracy of questionnaires and measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms.DESIGN: Articles were eligible for inclusion when the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) was established for measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in an adult population. The databases searched were PubMed (1966-2018), Cochrane (1898-2018) and Cinahl (1988-2018). Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for criterion validity. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations were applied to establish the level of evidence per measurement instrument.RESULTS: From 3450 articles identified, 31 articles were included in this review. Eleven measurement instruments for migraine were identified, of which the ID-Migraine is recommended with a moderate level of evidence and a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.78). Six measurement instruments examined both migraine and tension-type headache and only the Headache Screening Questionnaire - Dutch version has a moderate level of evidence with a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.80) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.77-0.96) for migraine, and a sensitivity of 0.36 (95% CI 0.21-0.54) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-0.92) for tension-type headache. For cervicogenic headache, only the cervical flexion rotation test was identified and had a very low level of evidence with a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.94) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.91).DISCUSSION: The current review is the first to establish an overview of the diagnostic accuracy of measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal factors. However, as most measurement instruments were validated in one study, pooling was not always possible. Risk of bias was a serious problem for most studies, decreasing the level of evidence. More research is needed to enhance the level of evidence for existing measurement instruments for multiple headaches.
PurposeTo assess the experience and perceived added value of an e-Health application during the physical therapy treatment of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).Materials and methodsA mixed-methods study including semi-structured interviews was performed with orofacial physical therapists (OPTs) and with TMD patients regarding their experience using an e-Health application, Physitrack. The modified telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire and pain intensity score before and after treatment were collected from the patients.ResultsTen OPTs, of which nine actively used Physitrack, described that the e-Health application can help to provide personalised care to patients with TMD, due to the satisfying content, user-friendliness, accessibility, efficiency, and ability to motivate patients. Ten patients, of which nine ended up using Physitrack, felt that shared decision-making was very important. These patients were positive towards the application as it was clear, convenient, and efficient, it helped with reassurance and adherence to the exercises and overall increased self-efficacy. This was mostly built on their experience with exercise videos, as this feature was most used. None of the OPTs or patients used all features of Physitrack. The overall satisfaction of Physitrack based on the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire (TSUQ) was 20.5 ± 4.0 and all patients (100%) showed a clinically relevant reduction of TMD pain (more than 2 points and minimally 30% difference).ConclusionOPTs and patients with TMD shared the idea that exercise videos are of added value on top of usual physical therapy care for TMD complaints, which could be delivered through e-Health.