根据三种纤维肌痛诊断标准得出的纤维肌痛患病率和特征:二次分析研究。

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-04-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2023-0143
Egil A Fors, Knut-Arne Wensaas, Anne-Sofie Helvik
{"title":"根据三种纤维肌痛诊断标准得出的纤维肌痛患病率和特征:二次分析研究。","authors":"Egil A Fors, Knut-Arne Wensaas, Anne-Sofie Helvik","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2023-0143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence of fibromyalgia (FM) according to different diagnostic criteria in a clinical sample and to explore the clinical characteristics in cases and non-cases by the diagnostic criteria used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 182 participants, both positive (n = 120) and negative (n = 62) FM individuals according to a clinical, pragmatic classification was used. Their characteristics were explored according to three different FM diagnostic criteria, i.e., the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1990, ACR 2016, and APS Pain Taxonomy (AAPT), respectively. Thus, impact of FM (FIQ), symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), tender point (TP) counts, and mechanical pressure sensitivity (in kPa) were compared in cases versus non-cases depending on diagnostic criteria of FM used. Descriptive analyses used chi-square statistic for categorical variables and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the clinical positive FM sample (n = 120), n = 99, 108, and 110 persons were diagnosed positive according to the ACR 1990, ACR 2016, and AAPT FM diagnostic criteria, respectively. All these three diagnostic tools discriminated FM positively from diagnostic FM non-cases when measuring TP-counts, mechanical pressures, and most FIQ-items, but they varied for anxiety and depression.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The prevalence of FM differed somewhat with the use of ACR 1990, ACR 2016, and the AAPT as diagnostic tools. The anxiety and depression symptoms differed significantly between cases and non-cases using some but not all the diagnostic criteria. Regarding other FM symptoms, e.g., TPs and most FIQ items, all diagnostic criteria contrasted case from non-case.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence and characteristics of fibromyalgia according to three fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria: A secondary analysis study.\",\"authors\":\"Egil A Fors, Knut-Arne Wensaas, Anne-Sofie Helvik\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sjpain-2023-0143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence of fibromyalgia (FM) according to different diagnostic criteria in a clinical sample and to explore the clinical characteristics in cases and non-cases by the diagnostic criteria used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 182 participants, both positive (n = 120) and negative (n = 62) FM individuals according to a clinical, pragmatic classification was used. Their characteristics were explored according to three different FM diagnostic criteria, i.e., the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1990, ACR 2016, and APS Pain Taxonomy (AAPT), respectively. Thus, impact of FM (FIQ), symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), tender point (TP) counts, and mechanical pressure sensitivity (in kPa) were compared in cases versus non-cases depending on diagnostic criteria of FM used. Descriptive analyses used chi-square statistic for categorical variables and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the clinical positive FM sample (n = 120), n = 99, 108, and 110 persons were diagnosed positive according to the ACR 1990, ACR 2016, and AAPT FM diagnostic criteria, respectively. All these three diagnostic tools discriminated FM positively from diagnostic FM non-cases when measuring TP-counts, mechanical pressures, and most FIQ-items, but they varied for anxiety and depression.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The prevalence of FM differed somewhat with the use of ACR 1990, ACR 2016, and the AAPT as diagnostic tools. The anxiety and depression symptoms differed significantly between cases and non-cases using some but not all the diagnostic criteria. Regarding other FM symptoms, e.g., TPs and most FIQ items, all diagnostic criteria contrasted case from non-case.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2023-0143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2023-0143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究的目的是根据不同的诊断标准探讨纤维肌痛(FM)在临床样本中的患病率,并根据所用诊断标准探讨病例和非病例的临床特征:方法:根据临床实用分类,对 182 名 FM 患者进行了抽样调查,其中包括阳性(120 人)和阴性(62 人)患者。根据三种不同的 FM 诊断标准,即美国风湿病学会(ACR)1990 年标准、ACR 2016 年标准和 APS 疼痛分类标准(AAPT),分别探讨了他们的特征。因此,根据所使用的 FM 诊断标准,比较了病例与非病例的 FM 影响(FIQ)、焦虑和抑郁症状(HADS)、压痛点(TP)计数和机械压力敏感性(单位:kPa)。描述性分析对分类变量采用卡方统计,对连续变量采用非参数曼-惠特尼 U 检验:在临床阳性 FM 样本(n = 120)中,根据 ACR 1990、ACR 2016 和 AAPT FM 诊断标准,分别有 99、108 和 110 人被诊断为阳性。在测量TP计数、机械压力和大多数FIQ项目时,所有这三种诊断工具都能将FM阳性病例与非FM诊断病例区分开来,但在焦虑和抑郁方面却存在差异:使用 ACR 1990、ACR 2016 和 AAPT 作为诊断工具时,FM 的患病率存在一定差异。使用部分而非全部诊断标准时,病例与非病例之间的焦虑和抑郁症状存在显著差异。至于其他 FM 症状,如 TPs 和大多数 FIQ 项目,所有诊断标准都使病例与非病例形成对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prevalence and characteristics of fibromyalgia according to three fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria: A secondary analysis study.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence of fibromyalgia (FM) according to different diagnostic criteria in a clinical sample and to explore the clinical characteristics in cases and non-cases by the diagnostic criteria used.

Methods: A sample of 182 participants, both positive (n = 120) and negative (n = 62) FM individuals according to a clinical, pragmatic classification was used. Their characteristics were explored according to three different FM diagnostic criteria, i.e., the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1990, ACR 2016, and APS Pain Taxonomy (AAPT), respectively. Thus, impact of FM (FIQ), symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), tender point (TP) counts, and mechanical pressure sensitivity (in kPa) were compared in cases versus non-cases depending on diagnostic criteria of FM used. Descriptive analyses used chi-square statistic for categorical variables and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables.

Results: From the clinical positive FM sample (n = 120), n = 99, 108, and 110 persons were diagnosed positive according to the ACR 1990, ACR 2016, and AAPT FM diagnostic criteria, respectively. All these three diagnostic tools discriminated FM positively from diagnostic FM non-cases when measuring TP-counts, mechanical pressures, and most FIQ-items, but they varied for anxiety and depression.

Conclusion: The prevalence of FM differed somewhat with the use of ACR 1990, ACR 2016, and the AAPT as diagnostic tools. The anxiety and depression symptoms differed significantly between cases and non-cases using some but not all the diagnostic criteria. Regarding other FM symptoms, e.g., TPs and most FIQ items, all diagnostic criteria contrasted case from non-case.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain. To speak or not to speak? A secondary data analysis to further explore the context-insensitive avoidance scale. Intrathecal pain treatment for severe pain in patients with terminal cancer: A retrospective analysis of treatment-related complications and side effects. Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. The relationship between changes in pain intensity and functional disability in persistent disabling low back pain during a course of cognitive functional therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1