↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Psychosocial interventions for the management of chronic orofacial pain

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
Psychosocial interventions for the management of chronic orofacial pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008456.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vishal R Aggarwal, Karina Lovell, Sarah Peters, Hanieh Javidi, Amy Joughin, Joanna Goldthorpe

Abstract

Psychosocial factors have a role in the onset of chronic orofacial pain. However, current management involves invasive therapies like occlusal adjustments and splints which lack an evidence base. To determine the efficacy of non-pharmacologic psychosocial interventions for chronic orofacial pain. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 25 October 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 25 October 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 25 October 2010) and PsycINFO via OVID (1950 to 25 October 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Randomised controlled trials which included non-pharmacological psychosocial interventions for adults with chronic orofacial pain compared with any other form of treatment (e.g. usual care like intraoral splints, pharmacological treatment and/or physiotherapy). Data were independently extracted in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for details of randomisation and loss to follow-up, and also to provide means and standard deviations for outcome measures where these were not available. Risk of bias was assessed and disagreements between review authors were discussed and another review author involved where necessary. Seventeen trials were eligible for inclusion into the review. Psychosocial interventions improved long-term pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.50 to -0.18) and depression (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.16). However, the risk of bias was high for almost all studies. A subgroup analysis revealed that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) either alone or in combination with biofeedback improved long-term pain intensity, activity interference and depression. However the studies pooled had high risk of bias and were few in number. The pooled trials were all related to temporomandibular disorder (TMD). There is weak evidence to support the use of psychosocial interventions for chronic orofacial pain. Although significant effects were observed for outcome measures where pooling was possible, the studies were few in number and had high risk of bias. However, given the non-invasive nature of such interventions they should be used in preference to other invasive and irreversible treatments which also have limited or no efficacy. Further high quality trials are needed to explore the effects of psychosocial interventions on chronic orofacial pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 167 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 44 26%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 46%
Psychology 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 41 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,177,175
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,738
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,088
of 348,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 348,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.