Translating the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders into German: evaluation of content and process

AIMS: To develop a German-language version of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) through a formal translation/back-translation process, to summarize available data about their psychometric properties, and to provide new data about psychometric testing of components of the RDC/TMD. METHODS: To cross-culturally adapt the instrument, the RDC/TMD were translated using a forward-backward method, except for measures of somatization and depression, because German-specific instruments of these already existed. The psychometric properties of the RDC/TMD were examined, and the literature on this topic was reviewed. RESULTS: The available literature about reliability of clinical examination methods (4 studies) showed at least acceptable results, with a median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.60. Reliability of RDC/TMD components Jaw Disability List (JDL) and Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) was sufficient (ICC for retest reliability [n = 27] was 0.76 for JDL and 0.92 for GCPS; Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency [n = 378] was 0.72 and 0.88, respectively). A priori hypothesized associations between GCPS or JDL summary scores and self-report of general health, oral health, oral health-related quality of life, or dysfunctional pain, which were measured by means of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory, were confirmed in a convenience sample of clinical TMD patients (n = 378). These correlations were interpreted as support for the validity of the GCPS and JDL. The original RDC/TMD include measures for somatization and depression (SCL-90-R); however, equivalent German instruments to assess these constructs ("Beschwerdenliste," "Allgemeine Depressionsskala") have well-established validity and reliability in the German cultural environment. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties and international comparability of the German version of the RDC/TMD (RDC/TMD-G) make this instrument suitable for the assessment of TMD in Germany.     

An attempt to make lipid-lowering therapy more effective in Hungary. The results of MULTI GAP 2010 and the PLUS Program

Introduction

The primary goal of lipid-lowering therapy is the attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target levels.

Material and methods

The MULTI GAP (MULTI Goal Attainment Problem) 2010 is a part of surveys started a few years ago, in which the lipid results of 1540 patients treated by general practitioners (GPs) and specialists were measured. The data were compared to the results of similar studies involving 15,580 patients between 2004 and 2009.

Results

In 2010 the mean LDL-C level (± SD) of patients treated by GPs was found to be 3.01 ±1.0 mmol/l. The target of 2.50 mmol/l was achieved by 32%, with a mean LDL-C level of 2.84 ±1.0 mmol/l and an achievement rate of 39% in patients treated by specialists. The results of comparisons starting from 2004 showed a marked improvement every year in the beginning, but in the last 3 years stagnation was observed. In 2010 in addition to the MULTI GAP main study, a group of physicians took part in special training called the Plus Program. As a result of this, the LDL-C level was 0.18 mmol/l lower in 114 of the GPs’ patients (p = 0.088) and 0.27 mmol/l (p < 0.0001) lower in 313 of the specialists’ patients, with a significantly better, 42% (p = 0.045) and 50% (p = 0.001), goal attainment rate, respectively.

Conclusions

The 2010 MULTI GAP study shows that the quality of lipid-lowering therapy in Hungary seems to be in stagnation. The results of the PLUS Program suggest that continuous training of doctors is the key to further improvement.     

Comparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level calculated using the modified Martin/Hopkins estimation or the Friedewald formula with direct homogeneous assay measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

IntroductionLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) represents the primary lipoprotein target for reducing cardiovascular risk (CV). The aim of our study is to compare the direct and the calculated LDL-C levels in the range below 1.8 mmol/l and 2.6 mmol/l depending on triglycerides, and to evaluate the variation in remnant lipoprotein cholesterol.Material and methodsWe investigated 14 906 lipid profiles from fasting blood samples of Hungarian individuals with triglycerides < 4.5 mmol/l. Total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG) and direct LDL-C were measured by the enzymatic assay. We calculated LDL-C by Friedewald’s formula (F-LDL-C) and by using the new Martin/Hopkins estimation (MH-LDL-C).ResultsFor F-LDL-C below 1.8 mmol/l, MH-LDL-C was 58% between 1.8 and 2.59 mmol/l when TG was in the range 2.3–4.5 mmol/l. For F-LDL-C below 2.6 mmol/l, the MH-LDL-C concordance was 73% in the same TG range (2.3–4.5 mmol/l. If MH-LDL-C was less than 1.8 mmol/l or between 1.8 and 2.59 mmol/l, the difference between non-HDL-C (TC – HDL-C = AC: atherogenic cholesterol) and (MH)LDL-C was less than 0.8 mmol/l in the TG range below 2.3 mmol/l. The remnant lipoprotein cholesterol values were on average 0.5 mmol/l lower by the Martin/Hopkins estimation compared to the Friedewald’s calculation if the TG was above 2.3 mmol/l.ConclusionsThe Friedewald equation tends to underestimate LDL-C levels in very high and high-risk settings. Our analysis supports the conclusion that in Hungarian patients, LDL-C estimation using the Martin/Hopkins formula, which is validated by the beta-quantification method, yields a more accurate LDL-C value than that calculated by the Friedewald formula.