{"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。
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.