Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Aim: To develop and preliminarily evaluate a new screening instrument for atypical odontalgia (AO) or persistent dentoalveolar pain disorder (PDAP). To evaluate the instrument's performance in detecting AO/PDAP amongst a heterogeneous group of orofacial pain conditions and pain-free controls and empirically compare its performance with an established neuropathic screening instrument (S-LANSS), which is the best available standard.
Methods: The study design was cross-sectional; subjects recruited included a convenience sample of pain-free controls (n = 21) and four groups of orofacial pain conditions: AO/PDAP (n = 22); trigeminal neuralgia (n = 21); temporomandibular disorder (n = 41); and acute dental pain (n = 41). The instrument's internal reliability and factor structure were examined alongside its sensitivity and specificity and ROC-determined threshold score.
Results: The 9 AO/PDAP-specific items were found to moderately correlate with the S-LANSS (r = 0.58; P < 0.01). The 14-items of the full instrument were examined using exploratory factor analysis and reduced to ten items in a two-factor structure that explained 96% of the variance. This 10-item final instrument had a ROC area of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.67; 0.88), sensitivity of 77% (95% CI: 55; 92%), and specificity of 69% (95% CI: 60; 77%) with an intentionally higher false-positive rate than false-negative rate. In contrast, the S-LANSS exhibited sensitivity of 32% (95% CI: 14;55%) and specificity of 78% (95% CI: 70;85%) with less optimal false-positive versus false-negative rates.
Conclusion: This preliminary study confirms the new screening instrument for AO/PDAP merits progression to field testing.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iej.13017 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!