Diagnostic accuracy of questionnaires for temporomandibular disorders when compared to the gold standard: a systematic review

Evaluate the literature and answer the question “in patients with temporomandibular disorders symptoms, what is the diagnostic validity of the questionnaires available in the literature when compared to the gold standard Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) or Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD)?” The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023446897). The personalized search strategy was applied in Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, without the restriction of time and language, realized on May 19, 2021. The article selection process took place in two phases independently by two reviewers according to the eligibility criteria. The reference lists of the included articles were analyzed to assess their eligibility. The risk of bias was analyzed by QUADAS-2. Out of 482 potentially eligible studies, 290 were screened by title and abstract, 12 were selected for full-text analysis, 5 were included in the systematic review. Of these, 2 had a low risk of bias and 3 had moderate risk. The heterogeneity of the studies prevented the performance of the meta-analysis. The qualitative analysis of the studies allowed us to infer that the less extensive questionnaires used for clinical applicability showed acceptable reliability and good validity in relation to the RDC/TMD or the DC/TMD. It is noteworthy that the CD/TMD remains the most indicated and reliable diagnostic questionnaire for clinicians and researchers.