Quality of Reviews on TMJ Treatments
Author Information
Author(s): Bessa-Nogueira Ricardo V, Vasconcelos Belmiro CE, Niederman Richard
Primary Institution: University of Pernambuco, School of Dentistry, Recife, Brazil
Hypothesis
What is the methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing surgical and non-surgical treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders?
Conclusion
The study found that there are no significant differences in treatment outcomes between surgical and non-surgical options for TMJ disorders, but the quality of the reviews is low.
Supporting Evidence
- The search identified 211 reports, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria for systematic reviews.
- The first review met 23.5% of the methodological quality criteria, while the second met 77.5%.
- Both reviews indicated no significant differences in treatment outcomes between surgical and non-surgical methods.
Takeaway
Doctors looked at two studies about treating jaw pain and found that neither surgery nor other treatments worked better than the other, but the studies weren't very good.
Methodology
The study involved a systematic search of databases for reviews comparing TMJ treatments, evaluating their quality using specific instruments.
Potential Biases
Potential biases include the limited number of high-quality studies and the variability in treatment definitions and outcomes.
Limitations
The study's findings are limited by the low quality of the included systematic reviews and the small number of studies that met the inclusion criteria.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website