ArticleImaging science in dentistry2026
Does adding ultrasonography to clinical-psychosocial measures improve discrimination for temporomandibular disorders?
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare ultrasonography (US) measures and symptoms between temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and non-TMD groups and to quantify the incremental diagnostic value of US beyond a clinical-psychosocial core. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 57 adults (28 with TMD; 29 without TMD) assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. US measured the lateral condyle-capsule distance and masseter thickness. The clinical-psychosocial core comprised pain intensity and disability, jaw function, oral behaviors, central sensitization, pain distribution, and pressure pain thresholds. Penalized logistic regression with paired nested cross-validation was used to compare 3 models: A (core), B (US only), and C (combined). Performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Brier score. Incremental value was assessed using paired changes in AUC, net reclassification improvement, integrated discrimination improvement, and decision-curve analysis. Results: Anthropometric characteristics did not differ between groups. US measures showed no between-group differences, whereas psychosocial and pain-related measures did. Model A demonstrated good discrimination (AUC = 0.827). The US-only model performed poorly, and adding US to the core did not improve performance (AUC = 0.781); the paired difference in AUC was -0.051 (95% CI: -0.115 to 0.004). Reclassification and decision-curve analyses favored the core model. Sensitivity analyses (all pressure pain threshold sites and multiple imputation) yielded consistent results. Conclusion: US did not provide incremental diagnostic value beyond a clinical-psychosocial core for TMD classification and tended to worsen reclassification and clinical utility. Routine ultrasonography for general TMD diagnosis appears unwarranted and may be reserved for targeted structural indications. Larger, validated studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.