Cargando…

The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community

BACKGROUND: Recently, some studies suggested that clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia is inaccurate and does not reflect current definitions. However, this hypothesis has not been tested. We examined whether fibromyalgia was accurately diagnosed in the community. METHODS: We surveyed 3276 primary car...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Srinivasan, Sachin, Maloney, Eamon, Wright, Brynn, Kennedy, Michael, Kallail, K. James, Rasker, Johannes J., Häuser, Winfried, Wolfe, Frederick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6857982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31777779
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr2.1006
_version_ 1783470861230014464
author Srinivasan, Sachin
Maloney, Eamon
Wright, Brynn
Kennedy, Michael
Kallail, K. James
Rasker, Johannes J.
Häuser, Winfried
Wolfe, Frederick
author_facet Srinivasan, Sachin
Maloney, Eamon
Wright, Brynn
Kennedy, Michael
Kallail, K. James
Rasker, Johannes J.
Häuser, Winfried
Wolfe, Frederick
author_sort Srinivasan, Sachin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recently, some studies suggested that clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia is inaccurate and does not reflect current definitions. However, this hypothesis has not been tested. We examined whether fibromyalgia was accurately diagnosed in the community. METHODS: We surveyed 3276 primary care patients to determine current fibromyalgia status by criteria (CritFM). We also determined whether the patients had a physician's diagnosis of fibromyalgia (MDFM) and the level of symptom severity as measured by the polysymptomatic distress scale (PSD). RESULTS: The prevalence of MDFM and CritFM was 6.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3%, 6.9%) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.8%, 6.3%), respectively. However, only 32.2% with MDFM met 2016 criteria (CritFM), and only 35.4% with CritFM also had MDFM. The kappa statistic for diagnostic agreement was 0.296 (minimal agreement). The mean PSD score was 12.4 and 18.4 in MDFM and CritFM, respectively. The odds ratio for being a woman compared with being a man was 3.2 for MDFM versus 1.9 for CritFM, P = 0.023. Of the patients with MDFM, 68.3% received specific fibromyalgia pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement between MDFM and CritFM. Only one‐third of MDFM satisfy fibromyalgia criteria, and only one‐third of patients who meet the criteria have a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Physician diagnosis is biased and more likely in women. Fibromyalgia treatment is common in MDFM (70.7%). Overall, MDFM appears subjective and unrelated to fibromyalgia criteria. There appears to be no common definition of fibromyalgia in the community.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6857982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68579822019-11-27 The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community Srinivasan, Sachin Maloney, Eamon Wright, Brynn Kennedy, Michael Kallail, K. James Rasker, Johannes J. Häuser, Winfried Wolfe, Frederick ACR Open Rheumatol Original Article BACKGROUND: Recently, some studies suggested that clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia is inaccurate and does not reflect current definitions. However, this hypothesis has not been tested. We examined whether fibromyalgia was accurately diagnosed in the community. METHODS: We surveyed 3276 primary care patients to determine current fibromyalgia status by criteria (CritFM). We also determined whether the patients had a physician's diagnosis of fibromyalgia (MDFM) and the level of symptom severity as measured by the polysymptomatic distress scale (PSD). RESULTS: The prevalence of MDFM and CritFM was 6.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3%, 6.9%) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.8%, 6.3%), respectively. However, only 32.2% with MDFM met 2016 criteria (CritFM), and only 35.4% with CritFM also had MDFM. The kappa statistic for diagnostic agreement was 0.296 (minimal agreement). The mean PSD score was 12.4 and 18.4 in MDFM and CritFM, respectively. The odds ratio for being a woman compared with being a man was 3.2 for MDFM versus 1.9 for CritFM, P = 0.023. Of the patients with MDFM, 68.3% received specific fibromyalgia pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement between MDFM and CritFM. Only one‐third of MDFM satisfy fibromyalgia criteria, and only one‐third of patients who meet the criteria have a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Physician diagnosis is biased and more likely in women. Fibromyalgia treatment is common in MDFM (70.7%). Overall, MDFM appears subjective and unrelated to fibromyalgia criteria. There appears to be no common definition of fibromyalgia in the community. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6857982/ /pubmed/31777779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr2.1006 Text en © 2019 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Article
Srinivasan, Sachin
Maloney, Eamon
Wright, Brynn
Kennedy, Michael
Kallail, K. James
Rasker, Johannes J.
Häuser, Winfried
Wolfe, Frederick
The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community
title The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community
title_full The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community
title_fullStr The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community
title_full_unstemmed The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community
title_short The Problematic Nature of Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in the Community
title_sort problematic nature of fibromyalgia diagnosis in the community
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6857982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31777779
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr2.1006
work_keys_str_mv AT srinivasansachin theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT maloneyeamon theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT wrightbrynn theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT kennedymichael theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT kallailkjames theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT raskerjohannesj theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT hauserwinfried theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT wolfefrederick theproblematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT srinivasansachin problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT maloneyeamon problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT wrightbrynn problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT kennedymichael problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT kallailkjames problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT raskerjohannesj problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT hauserwinfried problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity
AT wolfefrederick problematicnatureoffibromyalgiadiagnosisinthecommunity