Is fibromyalgia a distinct clinical syndrome?

C. L. Rau, I. J. Russell

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻回顧型文獻

19 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

The validity of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) as a distinct clinical entity has been challenged for several reasons. Many skeptics express concern about the subjective nature of chronic pain, the subjectivity of the tender point (TeP) examination, the lack of a gold standard laboratory test, and the absence of a clear pathogenic mechanism by which to define FMS. Another expressed concern has been the relative nature of the pain-distress relationship in the rheumatology clinic. The apparently continuous relationship between TePs and somatic distress across a variety of clinical disorders is said to argue against FMS as a separate clinical disorder. The most aggressive challenges of the FMS concept have been from legal defenses of insurance carriers motivated by economic concerns. Other forms of critique have presented as psychiatric dogma, uninformed posturing, suspicion of malingering, ignorance of nociceptive physiology, and occasionally have resulted from honest misunderstanding. It is not likely that a few paragraphs of data and logic will cause an unbeliever to change an ingrained opinion. Therefore, this review describes the clinical manifestations of FMS, responds to some of the theoretic arguments against it, and discusses some possible pathophysiologic mechanisms by which FMS may develop and persist as a unique syndrome.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)287-294
頁數8
期刊Current review of pain
4
發行號4
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 一月 1 2000
對外發佈Yes

指紋

Fibromyalgia
distress
pain
insurance
gold
physiology
economics
Malingering
Insurance Carriers
Rheumatology
Chronic Pain
Psychiatry
Economics
Pain
laboratory experimentation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Insect Science

引用此文

Is fibromyalgia a distinct clinical syndrome? / Rau, C. L.; Russell, I. J.

於: Current review of pain, 卷 4, 編號 4, 01.01.2000, p. 287-294.

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻回顧型文獻

Rau, C. L. ; Russell, I. J. / Is fibromyalgia a distinct clinical syndrome?. 於: Current review of pain. 2000 ; 卷 4, 編號 4. 頁 287-294.
@article{1197c6cd4dc84558b739051df7932f70,
title = "Is fibromyalgia a distinct clinical syndrome?",
abstract = "The validity of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) as a distinct clinical entity has been challenged for several reasons. Many skeptics express concern about the subjective nature of chronic pain, the subjectivity of the tender point (TeP) examination, the lack of a gold standard laboratory test, and the absence of a clear pathogenic mechanism by which to define FMS. Another expressed concern has been the relative nature of the pain-distress relationship in the rheumatology clinic. The apparently continuous relationship between TePs and somatic distress across a variety of clinical disorders is said to argue against FMS as a separate clinical disorder. The most aggressive challenges of the FMS concept have been from legal defenses of insurance carriers motivated by economic concerns. Other forms of critique have presented as psychiatric dogma, uninformed posturing, suspicion of malingering, ignorance of nociceptive physiology, and occasionally have resulted from honest misunderstanding. It is not likely that a few paragraphs of data and logic will cause an unbeliever to change an ingrained opinion. Therefore, this review describes the clinical manifestations of FMS, responds to some of the theoretic arguments against it, and discusses some possible pathophysiologic mechanisms by which FMS may develop and persist as a unique syndrome.",
author = "Rau, {C. L.} and Russell, {I. J.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11916-000-0105-4",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "287--294",
journal = "Current Pain and Headache Reports",
issn = "1531-3433",
publisher = "Current Science, Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is fibromyalgia a distinct clinical syndrome?

AU - Rau, C. L.

AU - Russell, I. J.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - The validity of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) as a distinct clinical entity has been challenged for several reasons. Many skeptics express concern about the subjective nature of chronic pain, the subjectivity of the tender point (TeP) examination, the lack of a gold standard laboratory test, and the absence of a clear pathogenic mechanism by which to define FMS. Another expressed concern has been the relative nature of the pain-distress relationship in the rheumatology clinic. The apparently continuous relationship between TePs and somatic distress across a variety of clinical disorders is said to argue against FMS as a separate clinical disorder. The most aggressive challenges of the FMS concept have been from legal defenses of insurance carriers motivated by economic concerns. Other forms of critique have presented as psychiatric dogma, uninformed posturing, suspicion of malingering, ignorance of nociceptive physiology, and occasionally have resulted from honest misunderstanding. It is not likely that a few paragraphs of data and logic will cause an unbeliever to change an ingrained opinion. Therefore, this review describes the clinical manifestations of FMS, responds to some of the theoretic arguments against it, and discusses some possible pathophysiologic mechanisms by which FMS may develop and persist as a unique syndrome.

AB - The validity of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) as a distinct clinical entity has been challenged for several reasons. Many skeptics express concern about the subjective nature of chronic pain, the subjectivity of the tender point (TeP) examination, the lack of a gold standard laboratory test, and the absence of a clear pathogenic mechanism by which to define FMS. Another expressed concern has been the relative nature of the pain-distress relationship in the rheumatology clinic. The apparently continuous relationship between TePs and somatic distress across a variety of clinical disorders is said to argue against FMS as a separate clinical disorder. The most aggressive challenges of the FMS concept have been from legal defenses of insurance carriers motivated by economic concerns. Other forms of critique have presented as psychiatric dogma, uninformed posturing, suspicion of malingering, ignorance of nociceptive physiology, and occasionally have resulted from honest misunderstanding. It is not likely that a few paragraphs of data and logic will cause an unbeliever to change an ingrained opinion. Therefore, this review describes the clinical manifestations of FMS, responds to some of the theoretic arguments against it, and discusses some possible pathophysiologic mechanisms by which FMS may develop and persist as a unique syndrome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033649237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033649237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11916-000-0105-4

DO - 10.1007/s11916-000-0105-4

M3 - Review article

C2 - 10953276

AN - SCOPUS:0033649237

VL - 4

SP - 287

EP - 294

JO - Current Pain and Headache Reports

JF - Current Pain and Headache Reports

SN - 1531-3433

IS - 4

ER -