Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2020
TMD diagnosis: Sensitivity and specificity of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Stasiak Gabriela, Maracci Lucas Machado, de Oliveira Chami Vitória, Pereira Duziene Denardini, Tomazoni Fernanda, Bernardon Silva Tatiana, Ferrazzo VilmarAntônio, Marquezan Mariana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether the Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) has adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorder (TMD).
METHODS: Two hundred-sixty-five participants with symptoms of TMDs were assessed through the FAI and through the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and then classified as sick or non-sick. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the FAI in relation to the RDC/TMD were calculated using the STATA 14.0 software.
RESULTS: Most of the patients were female, white, without a steady job, and the average age was 37.57 years. The FAI showed high sensitivity (97.21%) but obtained a low specificity (26.00%). The positive and negative predictive values were 84.96% and 68.42%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The FAI is very sensitive in identifying patients who actually have TMD but not very specific in identifying non-TMD patients, being indicated only for initial screening of patients.
METHODS: Two hundred-sixty-five participants with symptoms of TMDs were assessed through the FAI and through the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and then classified as sick or non-sick. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the FAI in relation to the RDC/TMD were calculated using the STATA 14.0 software.
RESULTS: Most of the patients were female, white, without a steady job, and the average age was 37.57 years. The FAI showed high sensitivity (97.21%) but obtained a low specificity (26.00%). The positive and negative predictive values were 84.96% and 68.42%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The FAI is very sensitive in identifying patients who actually have TMD but not very specific in identifying non-TMD patients, being indicated only for initial screening of patients.