Critical Appraisal of Clinical Trials Evaluating Physical Therapy Treatments for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT Background Physical therapy seems the most promising treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD), although their effectiveness is controversial in general, due to high heterogeneity regarding study designs, applied treatments and outcomes measures. Objectives The aim of this scoping rev...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 51; no. 12; pp. 2683 - 2695
Main Authors Ballesteros‐Frutos, Jorge, Fernandez‐Matias, Ruben, Gallardo‐Zamora, Pablo, Pecos‐Martín, Daniel
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.12.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0305-182X
1365-2842
1365-2842
DOI10.1111/joor.13864

Cover

More Information
Summary:ABSTRACT Background Physical therapy seems the most promising treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD), although their effectiveness is controversial in general, due to high heterogeneity regarding study designs, applied treatments and outcomes measures. Objectives The aim of this scoping review is to analyse the methodological characteristics of clinical trials evaluating physical therapy treatments in subjects with TMD. Methods A systematic search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, Cochrane, ScienceDirect and EMBASE databases on 31 October 2023. Clinical trials evaluating physical therapy interventions in patients older than 18 years with TMD, published in English or Spanish languages. Data regarding content reporting of study designs, sample characteristics, interventions and outcome measures was extracted. Descriptive summary statistics were reported. Results The search retrieved 15 322 records, and 136 were included. There were 107 randomised clinical trials, 5 non‐randomised controlled trials and 24 non‐controlled trials. Most studies had moderate to high risk of bias, small sample sizes (median, 44 subjects) and short follow‐up periods (1–3 months). The most common diagnostic criteria used was the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) (48.9%). The most reported experimental interventions were manual therapy (40.4%), exercise (30.2%) and electrotherapy modalities (27.2%), and the most common outcome measure domains were pain (83.8%), range of movement (61.8%), disability (45.6%) and mechanosensitivity (29.4%). There was poor content reporting of experimental interventions. Conclusions Current literature of clinical trials of physical therapy interventions for TMD has moderate to high risk of bias, poor content reporting, small sample size and short‐term follow‐ups which limit internal and external validity, as well as applicability into clinical practice. Current literature of clinical trials of physical therapy interventions for temporomandibular disorders has moderate to high risk of bias, poor content reporting, small sample size and short‐term follow‐ups which limit internal and external validity, as well as applicability into clinical practice.
Bibliography:The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Funding
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:0305-182X
1365-2842
1365-2842
DOI:10.1111/joor.13864