Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2021
Diagnostic Tool Using the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Randomized Crossover-Controlled, Double-Blinded, Two-Center Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Young Andrew, Gallia Samantha, Ryan John F, Kamimoto Atsushi, Korczeniewska Olga A, Kalladka Mythili, Khan Junad, Noma Noboru
Аннотация
AIMS: To assess the speed and accuracy of a checklist user interface for the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD).
METHODS: A diagnostic tool formatted as a checklist was developed and compared to an existing diagnostic tool, the DC/TMD diagnsostic decision trees. Both types of tools use the DC/TMD and were tested by dental students, interns, and residents in the USA and Japan for diagnosis of hypothetical patients. The comparisons were done in a randomized, crossover, controlled, double-blinded trial.
RESULTS: Overall, subjects using the experimental tool answered 25% more correct diagnoses (P < .001) and missed 27% fewer diagnoses (P < .01). They were also able to finalize their diagnoses faster than those using the control tool, in 16% less time (P < .05). The difference in accuracy was more pronounced in complex cases, while the difference in speed was more pronounced in simple cases.
CONCLUSION: This checklist is an alternative user interface for the DC/TMD.
METHODS: A diagnostic tool formatted as a checklist was developed and compared to an existing diagnostic tool, the DC/TMD diagnsostic decision trees. Both types of tools use the DC/TMD and were tested by dental students, interns, and residents in the USA and Japan for diagnosis of hypothetical patients. The comparisons were done in a randomized, crossover, controlled, double-blinded trial.
RESULTS: Overall, subjects using the experimental tool answered 25% more correct diagnoses (P < .001) and missed 27% fewer diagnoses (P < .01). They were also able to finalize their diagnoses faster than those using the control tool, in 16% less time (P < .05). The difference in accuracy was more pronounced in complex cases, while the difference in speed was more pronounced in simple cases.
CONCLUSION: This checklist is an alternative user interface for the DC/TMD.