Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Patient-reported outcome measures for masticatory function in adults: a systematic review

Authors: Yanpin Fan, Xin Shu, Katherine Chiu Man Leung, Edward Chin Man Lo

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for masticatory function in adults.

Methods

Five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Plus and APA PsycINFO) were searched up to March 2021. Studies reporting development or validation of PROMs for masticatory function on adults were identified. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Psychometric properties of the PROM in each included study were rated against the criteria for good measurement properties based on the COSMIN guideline.

Results

Twenty-three studies investigating 19 PROMs were included. Methodological qualities of these studies were diverse. Four types of PROMs were identified: questions using food items to assess masticatory function (13 PROMs), questions on chewing problems (3 PROMs), questions using both food items and chewing problems (2 PROMs) and a global question (1 PROM). Only a few of these PROMs, namely chewing function questionnaire-Chinese, Croatian or Albanian, food intake questionnaire-Japanese, new food intake questionnaire-Japanese, screening for masticatory disorders in older adults and perceived difficulty of chewing-Tanzania demonstrated high or moderate level of evidence in several psychometric properties.

Conclusions

Currently, there is no PROM for masticatory function in adults with high-level evidence for all psychometric properties. There are variations in the psychometric properties among the different reported PROMs.
Trial Registration PROSPERO (CRD42020171591).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Hackley DM, Jain S, Pagni SE, Finkelman M, Ntaganira J, Morgan JP. Oral health conditions and correlates: a National Oral Health Survey of Rwanda. Glob Health Action. 2021;14(1):1904628.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Kwon SH, Park HR, Lee YM, Kwon SY, Kim OS, Kim HY, et al. Difference in food and nutrient intakes in Korean elderly people according to chewing difficulty: using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013 (6th). Nutr Res Pract. 2017;11(2):139–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Wright FAC, Law GG, Milledge KL, Chu SK, Hsu B, Valdez E, et al. Chewing function, general health and the dentition of older Australian men: the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2019;47(2):134–41.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Gonçalves T, Schimmel M, van der Bilt A, Chen J, van der Glas HW, Kohyama K, et al. Consensus on the terminologies and methodologies for masticatory assessment. J Oral Rehabil. 2021;48(6):745–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Elgestad SP, Sjögren P, Wårdh I, Boström AM. Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019;5(1):76–104.CrossRef
7.
Hirai T, Ishijima T, Koshino H, Anzai T. Age-related change of masticatory function in complete denture wearers: evaluation by a sieving method with peanuts and a food intake questionnaire method. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7(5):454–60.PubMed
8.
Koshino H, Hirai T, Toyoshita Y, Yokoyama Y, Tanaka M, Iwasaki K, et al. Development of new food intake questionnaire method for evaluating the ability of mastication in complete denture wearers. Prosthodont Res Prac. 2008;7(1):12–8.CrossRef
9.
Limpuangthip N, Somkotra T, Arksornnukit M. Subjective and objective measures for evaluating masticatory ability and associating factors of complete denture wearers: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):287–93.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Murakami M, Watanabe Y, Edahiro A, Ohara Y, Obuchi S, Kawai H, et al. Factors related to dissociation between objective and subjective masticatory function in Japanese community-dwelling elderly adults. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(8):598–604.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Pedroni-Pereira A, Marquezin MCS, Araujo DS, Pereira LJ, Bommarito S, Castelo PM. Lack of agreement between objective and subjective measures in the evaluation of masticatory function: a preliminary study. Physiol Behav. 2018;184:220–5.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Santesso N, Barbara AM, Kamran R, Akkinepally S, Cairney J, Akl EA, et al. Conclusions from surveys may not consider important biases: a systematic survey of surveys. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;122:108–14.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. Guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a Core Outcome Set. The Netherlands: COMET COSMIN; 2016.
14.
Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”–a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):1–10.CrossRef
15.
Mokkink LB, De Vet HC, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, De Vet H, et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User manual. 2018; pp. 1–78.
17.
Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, De Vet HC, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Terwee CB, Prinsen C, Chiarotto A, De Vet H, Bouter LM, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs–user manual. Amsterdam: VU University Medical Center; 2018.
19.
Mittal H, John MT, Sekulić S, Theis-Mahon N, Rener-Sitar K. Patient-reported outcome measures for adult dental patients: a systematic review. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019;19(1):53–70.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Fu L, Liu G, Wu X, Zhu Z, Sun H, Xia H. Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with single-implant mandibular overdentures: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2021;48(1):81–94.PubMedCrossRef
21.
McGrath C, Lam O, Lang N. An evidence-based review of patient-reported outcome measures in dental implant research among dentate subjects. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39:193–201.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Yao CJ, Cao C, Bornstein MM, Mattheos N. Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with implant-supported removable and fixed prostheses: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:241–54.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Khalifa N, Allen PF, Abu-bakr NH, Abdel-Rahman ME. Chewing ability and associated factors in a Sudanese population. J Oral Sci. 2013;55(4):349–57.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Miura H, Sato K, Hara S, Yamasaki K, Morisaki N. Development of a masticatory indicator using a checklist of chewable food items for the community-dwelling elderly. Int Sch Res Notices. 2013;2013:194693.
28.
Hsu KJ, Lee HE, Wu YM, Lan SJ, Huang ST, Yen YY. Masticatory factors as predictors of oral health-related quality of life among elderly people in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(4):1395–405.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Montero J, Dib A, Guadilla Y, Blanco L, Flores J, Gómez-Polo C. Responsiveness of the different methods for assessing the short-term within-subject change in masticatory function after conventional prosthetic treatments. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):602–10.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Fan Y, Shu X, Lo ECM, Leung KCM. Development and validation of a chewing function questionnaire for Chinese older adults. J Dent. 2021;104:103520.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Sato Y, Minagi S, Akagawa Y, Nagasawa T. An evaluation of chewing function of complete denture wearers. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62(1):50–3.PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Miura H, Araki Y, Hirai T, Isogai E, Hirose K, Umenai T. Evaluation of chewing activity in the elderly person. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25(3):190–3.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Sarita PT, Witter DJ, Kreulen CM, Van’t Hof MA, Creugers NH. Chewing ability of subjects with shortened dental arches. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31(5):328–34.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zeng X, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Development and evaluation of an index of eating difficulty for older southern Chinese people. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(6):395–401.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Baba K, John MT, Inukai M, Aridome K, Igarahsi Y. Validating an alternate version of the chewing function questionnaire in partially dentate patients. BMC Oral Health. 2009;9(1):1–7.CrossRef
37.
Kim B, Jeong S, Chung K, Cho Y, Kwon H, Choi C. Subjective food intake ability in relation to maximal bite force among Korean adults. J Oral Rehabil. 2009;36(3):168–75.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hsu KJ, Lee HE, Lan SJ, Huang ST, Chen CM, Yen YY. Evaluation of a self-assessed screening test for masticatory ability of Taiwanese older adults. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):e1113–20.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Tsuga K, Carlsson G, Österberg T, Karlsson S. Self-assessed masticatory ability in relation to maximal bite force and dental state in 80-year-old subjects. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25(2):110–6.CrossRef
40.
Cusson V, Caron C, Gaudreau P, Morais JA, Shatenstein B, Payette H. Assessing older adults’ masticatory efficiency. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(6):1192–6.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Cavalcanti RVA, Junior HVM, de Araújo PL, de Lima KC. Screening for masticatory disorders in older adults (SMDOA): an epidemiological tool. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(3):243–9.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Khodaeian N, Rismanchian M, Behzadi A, Jowkar F. Validity and reliability of a Persian version of the quality of masticatory function questionnaire for edentulous patients. Dent Res J. 2016;13(2):160.CrossRef
43.
Bimbashi V, Staka G, Čelebić A, Hoxha F, Shala K, Petričević N. Psychometric properties of the Albanian version of chewing-function questionnaire CFQ-ALB. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Peršić S, Palac A, Bunjevac T, Celebić A. Development of a new chewing function questionnaire for assessment of a self-perceived chewing function. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(6):565–73.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Yanagisawa T, Ueno M, Shinada K, Ohara S, Kawaguchi Y. Validity of self-reported masticatory function in a Japanese population. J Dent Health. 2010;60(3):214–23.
46.
Ueno M, Shimazu T, Sawada N, Tsugane S, Kawaguchi Y. Validity of self-reported tooth counts and masticatory status study of a Japanese adult population. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(5):393–8.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Dougall A, Molina GF, Eschevins C, Faulks D. A Global Oral Health Survey of professional opinion using the International Classification of Functioning. Disability Health J Dent. 2015;43(6):683–94.PubMed
48.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G. Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S115-123.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, Aaronson N, Conroy T, Cull A, et al. Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):373–85.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Gregorich SE. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S78-94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, Eimicke JP, Crane PK, Jones RN, et al. Analysis of differential item functioning in the depression item bank from the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS): an item response theory approach. Psychol Sci Q. 2009;51(2):148–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
54.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Norman GR. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(11):1097–105.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Stockler MR, Osoba D, Goodwin P, Corey P, Tannock IF. Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: a comparison of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial specific module. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
58.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Streiner DL, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRef
60.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient-reported outcome measures for masticatory function in adults: a systematic review
Authors
Yanpin Fan
Xin Shu
Katherine Chiu Man Leung
Edward Chin Man Lo
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01949-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Oral Health 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research article

Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting after the removal of impacted third molars: a cross-sectional study

Research

Trends in socioeconomic inequality of periodontal health status among Dutch adults: a repeated cross-sectional analysis over two decades

Research

Clinical research: low-level laser therapy in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement

Research article

Comparison of novel and established caries diagnostic methods: a clinical study on occlusal surfaces

Research

Influence of restorative material and cement on the stress distribution of endocrowns: 3D finite element analysis

Case report

Prevention of oral and maxillofacial trauma secondary to orofacial dyskinesias associated with anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor encephalitis: a case series