Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Pain. 2011 Nov;12(11 Suppl):T46–T60. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2011.08.007

Table 2.

Measures of Affective Distress and Stress for TMD Cases and Controls

Putative risk factor Units and potential range Controls TMD cases P-value1 Non-imputed effect estimates2
Imputed effect estimates
Site-adjusted effect3 Fully adjusted effect4 Fully adjusted effect
n mean se n mean se SOR5 95% CI6 SOR 95%CI n SOR 95%CI
State Anxiety Inventory (20–80 scale) 1598 30.90 0.24 181 32.69 0.73 0.0162 1.2 1.1, 1.4 1.3 1.1, 1.5 1809 1.3 1.1, 1.5
Trait Anxiety Inventory (20–80 scale) 1585 35.50 0.24 180 38.59 0.81 <0.0001 1.4 1.2, 1.7 1.5 1.3, 1.7 1812 1.5 1.3, 1.7
POMS-Bi Positive Affect (30–120 scale) 1547 87.18 0.4 178 82.62 1.23 0.0002 0.7 0.6,0.8 0.7 0.6, 0.8 1809 0.7 0.6, 0.8
POMS-Bi Negative Affect (30–120 scale) 1565 49.47 0.4 180 56.34 1.29 <0.0001 1.5 1.3, 1.7 1.5 1.3, 1.7 1809 1.4 1.2, 1.7
Perceived Stress Scale (0–40 scale) 1603 14.66 0.16 183 16.81 0.51 <0.0001 1.4 1.2, 1.7 1.5 1.3, 1.8 1807 1.5 1.3, 1.8
1

P-values are from analysis variance model comparing mean values of putative risk factor between cases and controls, with adjustment for study site.

2

Non-imputed effect estimates are for complete case analysis using numbers of subjects in columns headed n.

3

Site-adjusted effects were computed in logistic regression models where the putative risk factor as the main explanatory variable and study site as covariate.

4

Fully-adjusted effects were computed in logistic regression models that additionally include covariates of age group, gender and race/ethnicity.

5

SOR is standardized odds ratio from a logistic regression model evaluating the linear effect of the risk factor that was standardized by z-score transformation

6

95% confidence interval for SOR