↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Arthrocentesis and lavage for treating temporomandibular joint disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Arthrocentesis and lavage for treating temporomandibular joint disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004973.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chunlan Guo, Zongdao Shi, Peter Revington

Abstract

Temporomandibular joint disorders are important oral health problems, reducing the quality of life of sufferers. It has been estimated that approximately 20% to 30% of the adult population will experience temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Arthrocentesis and lavage has been used to treat temporomandibular joint disorders for about 10 years, but the clinical effectiveness of the therapy has not been summarized in the form of a systematic review. To assess the effectiveness and complications of arthrocentesis and lavage for the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders compared with controlled interventions. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to August 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2009), EMBASE (1980 to August 2009), OpenSIGLE (to August 2009), CBMdisc (1981 to 2007 (in Chinese)) and Chinese Medical Library were searched. All the Chinese professional journals in the oral health field were handsearched and conference proceedings consulted. There was no language restriction. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including quasi-randomised clinical trials) aiming to test the therapeutic effects of arthrocentesis and lavage for treating temporomandibular joint disorders. Two review authors independently extracted data, and three review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials. The first authors of the selected articles were contacted for additional information. Two trials, at unclear to high risk of bias, were included in the review. The two trials, including 81 patients with temporomandibular joint disorders, compared arthrocentesis with arthroscopy. No statistically significant difference was found between the interventions in terms of pain. However, a statistically significant difference in favour of arthroscopy was found in maximum incisal opening (MIO) (weighted mean difference of -5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) -7.10 to -3.46)).Mild and transient adverse reactions such as discomfort or pain at the injection site were reported in both groups. No data about quality of life were reported. There is insufficient, consistent evidence to either support or refute the use of arthrocentesis and lavage for treating patients with temporomandibular joint disorders. Further high quality RCTs of arthrocentesis need to be conducted before firm conclusions with regard to its effectiveness can be drawn.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Materials Science 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 27 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#10,024,058
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,788
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,046
of 347,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.