Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to verify the accuracy of clinical protocols for the diagnosis of disc displacement (DD) compared with MRI, considering examiners' calibration. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane (Central), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Embase, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and DANS EASY Archive databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the R Statistical software. Results are shown using sensitivity and specificity, and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of the 20 studies included in the systematic review, only three were classified as low risk of bias. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to MRI, clinical protocols showed overall sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 (0.63-0.83) and 0.73 (0.59-0.84) for DD diagnosis, respectively. For DD with reduction, sensitivity was 0.64 (0.48-0.77) and specificity was 0.72 (0.48-0.87). For DD without reduction, sensitivity was 0.58 (0.39-0.74) and specificity 0.93 (0.83-0.97). Only 8 studies reported examiner calibration when performing clinical and/or MRI evaluation; nevertheless, calibration showed a tendency to improve the diagnosis of DD. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols in the diagnosis of DD are slightly below the recommended values, as well as the studies lack calibration of clinical and MRI examiners. Examiner calibration seems to improve the diagnosis of DD.