Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

Do Rheumatologists Need More Clues to Diagnose Fibromyalgia?

DON L. GOLDENBERG
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2020, 47 (5) 650-651; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.191009
DON L. GOLDENBERG
Tufts University School of Medicine; Adjunct Faculty, Departments of Medicine and Nursing, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Roles: Emeritus Professor of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dongoldenberg44@gmail.com
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

In this issue of The Journal, Gibson, et al have demonstrated that certain subscales of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) can be combined to provide clues to the diagnosis of comorbid fibromyalgia (FM) in patients with rheumatic diseases1. An FM assessment screening tool (FAST) compared favorably to the 2011 self-report FM criteria, developed for clinical and epidemiologic studies2, and both agreed moderately with the clinical diagnosis of FM. The authors suggest that because MDHAQ is already frequently used in rheumatology centers, adapting the FAST indices can alert clinicians to concurrent FM without adding new self-administered screening instruments.

This paper also reconsiders a number of important issues involving rheumatologists and FM. First, rheumatologists have become more aware of the frequency and effect of FM in every rheumatic disease. Whether using the FAST indices, the 2011 FM criteria, or the gold standard (Dr. Gibson’s clinical diagnosis), FM was present in about 20–30% of patients with rheumatic disease. This is consistent with reports of FM in 13–40% of cases of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)3,4, 10–20% of osteoarthritis (OA)5, 10–30% with psoriatic arthritis or a spondyloarthropathy [SpA; such as axial SpA (axSpA)]5,6, and 20–40% with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)7.

Patients with rheumatic diseases in this study who met the 2011 FM criteria had more pain, greater joint counts, and worse scores for function and global well-being than those not meeting FM criteria. This is also consistent with recent studies. For example, RA patients with comorbid FM compared to those without FM have higher scores on all disease activity measures despite lower disease activity measures, such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or ultrasound3,4. In more than 1500 subjects with axSpA, the 21% who met criteria for FM had worse disease activity scores, global severity scores, and quality of life, and more mood disturbances and fatigue. They also experienced a greater likelihood of receiving biologic therapy and much greater damage to their work situation6. In patients with OA, chronic widespread pain and evidence for central sensitization correlated with pain sensitivity and poor outcome after knee or hip replacements8.

As the authors note, without a “gold standard diagnostic marker,” various FM classification criteria have been developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) during the past 3 decades to identify patients with FM. Such criteria are determined by and matched to expert (rheumatologists’) opinion. In this study, agreement between the clinical and 2011 FM criteria was quite good (83.8%, κ 0.50, p < 0.001). However, a number of studies have found significant discordance between clinical-based and criteria-based FM diagnoses9,10. These studies suggest that criteria-based diagnosis, based on validated, large, epidemiologic studies, represents “true” FM, whereas clinical criteria are “biased,” particularly regarding FM being a female-dominant condition.

Gibson, et al caution that FM criteria are not used in most routine clinical care and that a definitive diagnosis of FM requires a careful history and physical examination, with prudent evaluation of laboratory tests and other data1. FM criteria–based diagnoses fail to gather the total history, including associated conditions, family history, and symptom variability over time. Clinical FM is appropriately “biased” by the clinical encounter, as are all medical diagnoses. Diagnoses based on a list of pain regions and symptoms are appropriate for epidemiologic studies, and in the office can provide clues to diagnosis. However, the FM diagnosis can only be validated by the clinician.

This brings us to the final issue when thinking about this study: Do rheumatologists want to be responsible for the clinical diagnosis of FM? Rheumatologists put FM on the medical map but have been conflicted about its very character and diagnostic utility. There has been concern that diagnostic labels such as FM medicalize everyday symptoms, promoting illness behavior and driving up healthcare costs. However, studies from UK primary care practices found that an FM diagnosis decreased subsequent testing, specialty referrals, and healthcare costs11. Rheumatologists have also been frustrated by the lack of effective FM therapy. Longitudinal surveys from rheumatology centers with special interest and expertise in FM found that, on average, patients did not get better over a 7-year followup12. The ACR has recommended that rheumatologists not be the primary care providers for patients with FM, particularly because there is no evidence that patients with FM fare better under our care13.

Rheumatologists do not consider themselves to be pain specialists. We are drawn to better understanding and treating of immune diseases such as RA and SLE. Until recently, rheumatology training programs provided little formal training in chronic pain despite acknowledging the primary role that pain plays in our patients’ lives14.

More than two-thirds of Canadian rheumatologists recommended that rheumatologists should not retain ownership of FM15. Ninety percent of the rheumatologists believed that the family physician should be the main FM care provider. Rheumatologists consider that lack of effective therapy, absence of objective diagnostic tools, and the influence of psycho-social issues are key factors in not shouldering the main responsibility for patients with FM15.

Nevertheless, rheumatologists cannot abandon their leadership role in understanding the mechanisms of chronic, widespread pain, as well as its effect in systemic rheumatic diseases and regional pain. In a survey of more than 1600 physicians, including 50% primary care physicians (PCP) and the other 50% divided equally among rheumatologists, neurologists, pain specialists, and psychiatrists, more than half reported difficulty diagnosing FM16. Eighty-seven percent of rheumatologists were confident in making a diagnosis of FM compared to 53% of PCP and 46% of psychiatrists. Rheumatologists will always be the final FM authority and any clues to its presence can only be helpful to us, our colleagues, and our patients.

Footnotes

  • See Rheumatologists and fibromyalgia diagnosis, page 761

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gibson K,
    2. Castrejón I,
    3. Descallar J,
    4. Pincus T
    . Fibromyalgia Assessment Screening Tool (FAST): Clues to fibromyalgia on a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) for routine care. J Rheumatol 2020;47:761–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Wolfe F,
    2. Clauw DJ,
    3. Fitzcharles MA,
    4. Goldenberg DL,
    5. Hauser W,
    6. Katz RS,
    7. et al.
    Fibromyalgia criteria and severity scales for clinical and epidemiological studies: a modification of the ACR preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1113–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lage-Hansen PR,
    2. Chrysidis S,
    3. Lage-Hansen M,
    4. Hougaard A,
    5. Ejstrup L,
    6. Amris K
    . Concomitant fibromyalgia in rheumatoid arthritis is associated with the more frequent use of biological therapy: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Rheumatol 2016;45:45–8.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Joharatnam N,
    2. McWilliams DF,
    3. Wilson D,
    4. Wheeler M,
    5. Pande I,
    6. Walsh DA
    . A cross-sectional study of pain sensitivity, disease-activity assessment, mental health, and fibromyalgia status in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2015;17:11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Haliloglu S,
    2. Carlioglu A,
    3. Akdeniz D,
    4. Karaaslan Y,
    5. Kosar A
    . Fibromyalgia in patients with other rheumatic diseases: prevalence and relationship with disease activity. Rheumatol Int 2014;34:1275–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Macfarlane GJ,
    2. Barnish MS,
    3. Pathan E,
    4. Martin KR,
    5. Haywood KL,
    6. Siebert S,
    7. et al.
    The co-occurrence and characteristics of patients with axial spondyloarthritis who meet criteria for fibromyalgia: results from a UK national register (BSRBR-AS). Arthritis Rheumatol 2017;69:2144–50.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Wolfe F,
    2. Petri M,
    3. Alarcón GS,
    4. Goldman J,
    5. Chakravarty EF,
    6. Katz RS,
    7. et al.
    Fibromyalgia, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and evaluation of SLE activity. J Rheumatol 2009;36:82–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Brummett CM,
    2. Urquhart AG,
    3. Hassett AL,
    4. Tsodikov A,
    5. Hallstrom BR,
    6. Wood NI,
    7. et al.
    Characteristics of fibromyalgia independently predict poorer long-term analgesic outcomes following total knee and hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:1386–94.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wolfe F,
    2. Walitt B,
    3. Perrot S,
    4. Rasker JJ,
    5. Hauser W
    . Fibromyalgia diagnosis and biased assessment: sex, prevalence and bias. PLoS One 2018;13:e0203755.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Wolfe F,
    2. Schmukler J,
    3. Jamal S,
    4. Castrejon I,
    5. Gibson KA,
    6. Srinivasan S,
    7. et al.
    Diagnosis of fibromyalgia: disagreement between fibromyalgia criteria and clinician-based fibromyalgia diagnosis in a university clinic. Arthritis Care Res 2019;71:343–51.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Annemans L,
    2. Wessely S,
    3. Spaepen E,
    4. Caekelbergh K,
    5. Caubère JP,
    6. Le Lay K,
    7. et al.
    Health economic consequences related to the diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome. Arthritis Rheumatol 2008;58:895–902.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Solomon DH,
    2. Liang MH
    . Fibromyalgia: scourge of humankind or bane of a rheumatologist’s existence? Arthritis Rheumatol 1997;40:1553–5.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Garcia-Campayo J,
    2. Magdalena J,
    3. Magallón R,
    4. Fernandez-Garcia E,
    5. Salas M,
    6. Andres E
    . A meta-analysis of the efficacy of fibromyalgia treatment according to level of care. Arthritis Res Ther 2008;10:R81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Borenstein DG,
    2. Hassett AL,
    3. Pisetsky D
    . Pain management in rheumatology research, training, and practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2017;35:2–7.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ghazan-Shahi S,
    2. Towheed T,
    3. Hopman W
    . Should rheumatologists retain ownership of fibromyalgia? A survey of Ontario rheumatologists. Clin Rheumatol 2012;31:1177–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Perrot S,
    2. Choy E,
    3. Petersel D,
    4. Ginovker A,
    5. Kramer E
    . Survey of physician experiences and perceptions about the diagnosis and treatment of fibromyalgia. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:356.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 47, Issue 5
1 May 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Do Rheumatologists Need More Clues to Diagnose Fibromyalgia?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Do Rheumatologists Need More Clues to Diagnose Fibromyalgia?
DON L. GOLDENBERG
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2020, 47 (5) 650-651; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.191009

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Do Rheumatologists Need More Clues to Diagnose Fibromyalgia?
DON L. GOLDENBERG
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2020, 47 (5) 650-651; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.191009
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • New Advances in the Knowledge of Elemental Enthesis Lesions: Doppler, Erosion, and Thickness
  • Keep It in Mind: Assessing the Risk of Dementia in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Opportunities for Intervention
  • Celebrating The Journal of Rheumatology’s 50th Year of Publication
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire