The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 edition (beta version), may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals. Otherwise, copyright belongs exclusively to the International Headache Society. Reproduction of any part or parts in any manner for commercial uses requires the Society’s permission, which will be granted on payment of a fee. Please contact the publisher at the address below. International Headache Society 2013. Applications for copyright permissions should be submitted to Sage Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom (tel: þ44 (0) 20 7324 8500; fax: þ44 (0) 207 324 8600) (www.sagepub.co.uk). Translations

https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/89115/1/89115.pdf

The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version)

Clinical Application of Korean Version of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition, Beta Version

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a significant public health problem affecting approximately 5% to 12% of the population.1 TMD is the second most common musculoskeletal condition (after chronic low back pain) resulting in pain and disability.1 Pain-related TMD can impact the individual's daily activities, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Overall, the annual TMD management cost in the USA, not including imaging, has doubled in the last decade to $4 billion.1

Patients often seek consultation with dentists for their TMD, especially for pain-related TMD. Diagnostic criteria for TMD with simple, clear, reliable, and valid operational definitions for the history, examination, and imaging procedures are needed to render physical diagnoses in both clinical and research settings. In addition, biobehavioral assessment of pain-related behavior and psychosocial functioning—an essential part of the diagnostic process—is required and provides the minimal information whereby one can determine whether the patient's pain disorder, especially when chronic, warrants further multidisciplinary assessment. Taken together, a new dual-axis Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) will provide evidence-based criteria for the clinician to use when assessing patients, and will facilitate communication regarding consultations, referrals, and prognosis.2

The research community benefits from the ability to use well-defined and clinically relevant characteristics associated with the phenotype in order to facilitate more generalizable research. When clinicians and researchers use the same criteria, taxonomy, and nomenclature, then clinical questions and experience can be more easily transferred into relevant research questions, and research findings are more accessible to clinicians to better diagnose and manage their patients. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) have been the most widely employed diagnostic protocol for TMD research since its publication in 1992.3 This classification system was based on the biopsychosocial model of pain4 that included an Axis I physical assessment, using reliable and well-operationalized diagnostic criteria, and an Axis II assessment of psychosocial status and pain-related disability. The intent was to simultaneously provide a physical diagnosis and identify other relevant characteristics of the patient that could influence the expression and thus management of their TMD. Indeed, the longer the pain persists, the greater the potential for emergence and amplification of cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors, with resultant enhanced pain sensitivity, greater likelihood of additional pain persistence, and reduced probability of success from standard treatments.5

The RDC/TMD (1992) was intended to be only a first step toward improved TMD classification, and the authors stated the need for future investigation of the accuracy of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms in terms of reliability and criterion validity—the latter involving the use of credible reference standard diagnoses. Also recommended was further assessment of the clinical utility of the Axis II instruments. The original RDC/TMD Axis I physical diagnoses have content validity based on the critical review by experts of the published diagnostic approach in use at that time and were tested using population-based epidemiologic data.6 Subsequently, a multicenter study showed that, for the most common TMD, the original RDC/TMD diagnoses exhibited sufficient reliability for clinical use.7 While the validity of the individual RDC/TMD diagnoses has been extensively investigated, assessment of the criterion validity for the complete spectrum of RDC/TMD diagnoses had been absent until recently.8

For the original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments, good evidence for their reliability and validity for measuring psychosocial status and pain-related disability already existed when the classification system was published.9–13 Subsequently, a variety of studies have demonstrated the significance and utility of the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures in such areas as predicting outcomes of clinical trials, escalation from acute to chronic pain, and experimental laboratory settings.14–20

Other studies have shown that the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures are incomplete in terms of prediction of disease course.21–23 The overall utility of the biobehavioral measures in routine clinical settings has, however, yet to be demonstrated, in part because most studies have to date focused on Axis I diagnoses rather than Axis II biobehavioral factors.24

The aims of this article are to present the evidence-based new Axis I and Axis II DC/TMD to be used in both clinical and research settings, as well as present the processes related to their development.

Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group†

The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales: a systematic review.

The International Classification of Diseases has, under various names, been for many decades the essential tool for national and international comparability in public health. This statistical tool has been customarily revised every 10 years in order to keep up with the advances of medicine. At first intended primarily for the classification of causes of death, its scope has been progressively widening to include coding and tabulation of causes of morbidity as well as medical record indexing and retrieval. The ability to exchange comparable data from region to region and from country to country, to allow comparison from one population to another and to permit study of diseases over long periods, is one of the strengths of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death (ICD). WHO has been responsible for the organization, coordination and execution of activities related to ICD since 1948 (Sixth Revision of the ICD) and is now proceeding with the Tenth Revision. For the first time in its history the ICD will be based on an alphanumeric coding scheme and will have to function as a core classification from which a series of modules can be derived, each reaching a different degree of specificity and adapted to a particular specialty or type of user. It is proposed that the chapters on external causes of injury and poisoning, and factors influencing health status and contact with health services, which were supplementary classifications in ICD-9, should form an integral part of ICD-10. The title of ICD has been amended to "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems"', but the abbreviation "ICD" will be retained.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. Tenth revision.

Background:The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) is a practical self-report anxiety questionnaire that proved valid in primary care. However, the GAD-7 was not yet validated in the general population and thus far, normative data are not available.Objectives:To investigate reliability

Validation and Standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the General Population

Quality of life is becoming an increasingly important concept in the evaluation of different therapeutic interventions. In this cross-sectional study, quality of life analyzed in 76 renal transplant patients was compared with 65 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) awaiting transplantation. Both groups were asked to estimate their subjective quality of life by responding to a multidimensional questionnaire that sought information in the following areas: (1) sociodemographic data, (2) a personality test (Giessen-Test), (3) information about employment, (4) assessment of anxiety and depression (GHQ-28), (5) the SF-36 as an important measurement for quality of life, and (6) the ESRD symptom checklist-transplantation module. The sociodemographic profiles of both groups were similar. The SF-36 revealed significantly higher values for transplant recipients in terms of physical functioning (P < or = .001), general health perceptions (P < or = .01), social functioning (P < or = .01), and physical summary value (P < or = .001). The other tests (Giessen-Test and GHQ-28) and employment data showed no significant differences between the two samples. Collectively, the data demonstrate a considerable improvement in quality of life in renal transplant patients. Despite good physical recovery and higher quality of life after transplantation, the rate of vocational rehabilitation remained low, partially explained by the currently high levels of unemployment.

Changes in Quality of Life After Renal Transplantation

This study analyzed the dimensionality of the German version of Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale (RSES) in a nationally representative population sample of 4,988 subjects (46.4% males; aged 14–92 years). Using confirmatory factor analysis, one- and two-dimensional models were tested. Results suggest that the RSES is a two-dimensional scale comprising the highly correlated components positive and negative self-evaluation, which constitute a unitary construct of global self-esteem at the second-order level. In order to obtain a more conclusive solution, an item response theory (IRT) analysis (partial credit model) was conducted. Results lend support to a one-dimensional view of the RSES. Furthermore, psychometric properties and norm values based on the representative sample are reported. Analyses revealed extremely high response probabilities for all items, as a consequence of which self-esteem cannot be differentiated at the upper end of the range.

Dimensionality and norms of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in a German general population sample.

https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.30820/9783837972337-23.pdf

2. die »mitte«-studie 2016: methode, ergebnisse und langzeitverlauf

https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.30820/9783837977714-249.pdf

8. Antifeminismus – das Geschlecht im Autoritarismus? Die Messung von Antifeminismus und Sexismus in Deutschland auf der Einstellungsebene

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Oliver Decker

Author Tools

Chat about Author