Premium
Validity of different tools to assess sleep bruxism: a meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Casett E.,
Réus J. C.,
StuginskiBarbosa J.,
Porporatti A. L.,
Carra M. C.,
Peres M. A.,
Luca Canto G.,
Manfredini D.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12520
Subject(s) - polysomnography , meta analysis , diagnostic accuracy , medicine , medical physics , gold standard (test) , quality assessment , test (biology) , physical therapy , pathology , external quality assessment , apnea , paleontology , biology
Summary This systematic review and meta‐analysis ( MA ) aimed to evaluate the diagnostic validity of questionnaires, clinical assessment and portable diagnostic devices compared to the reference standard method polysomnography ( PSG ) in assessing sleep bruxism ( SB ). Two reviewers searched electronic databases for diagnostic test accuracy studies that compared questionnaires, clinical assessment or portable diagnostic devices for SB , with the reference standard method PSG , comprising previous studies from all languages and with no restrictions regarding age, gender or time of publication. Of the 351 articles, eight met the inclusion criteria for qualitative, and seven for quantitative analysis. The methodology of selected studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies ( QUADAS ‐2). The studies were divided and analysed over three groups: three studies evaluating questionnaires, two regarding the clinical assessment of tooth wear and three covering portable diagnostic devices. The MA indicated that portable diagnostic devices showed the best validity of all evaluated methods, especially as far as a four‐channel EMG / ECG recording is concerned. Questionnaires and the clinical assessment can be used as screening methods to identify non‐ SB individuals, although it is not that good in identifying subjects with SB . The quality of evidence identified through GRADE pro, was from very low‐to‐moderate, due to statistical heterogeneity between studies.