纤维肌痛的诊断:临床、调查及美国风湿病学会标准的比较
Fibromyalgia diagnosis: a comparison of clinical, survey, and American College of Rheumatology criteria.
作者信息
Katz Robert S, Wolfe Frederick, Michaud Kaleb
机构信息
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
出版信息
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Jan;54(1):169-76. doi: 10.1002/art.21533.
OBJECTIVE
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for fibromyalgia are the de facto criteria used for research. However, ACR criteria are not generally utilized by nonrheumatologists, and rheumatologists may diagnose fibromyalgia in patients who do not satisfy the ACR criteria. We undertook this study to determine concordance between ACR criteria and clinician diagnosis and between proposed survey criteria and clinician diagnosis.
METHODS
Consecutive patients in a clinical practice setting were evaluated by tender point examination, survey criteria for fibromyalgia (Regional Pain Scale score > or =8 and fatigue score > or =6), and clinical diagnosis.
RESULTS
Among the 206 patients, the clinician diagnosed fibromyalgia in 49.0%, while 29.1% satisfied ACR criteria and 40.3% satisfied survey criteria. Clinical and survey criteria were concordant in 74.8% of cases (kappa = 0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.36, 0.60]). Clinical criteria and ACR criteria were concordant in 75.2% of cases (kappa = 0.50 [95% confidence interval 0.35, 0.59]), and survey criteria and ACR criteria were concordant in 72.3% (kappa = 0.40 [95% confidence interval 0.25, 0.51]). The ACR tender point criterion (> or =11) was not a factor in clinical and survey criteria. However, the tender point count was useful in clinical diagnosis.
CONCLUSION
Clinical diagnosis and ACR and survey criteria are moderately concordant (72-75%) and address a common pool of symptoms and physical findings. Because there is no gold standard for fibromyalgia diagnosis and because fibromyalgia is often viewed as a trait diagnosis, all methods of diagnosis have utility. The survey method has the advantage that it does not require physical examination.
目的
美国风湿病学会(ACR)的纤维肌痛标准是研究中实际使用的标准。然而,非风湿病学家一般不采用ACR标准,并且风湿病学家可能会在不符合ACR标准的患者中诊断纤维肌痛。我们开展这项研究以确定ACR标准与临床医生诊断之间以及拟议的调查标准与临床医生诊断之间的一致性。
方法
在临床实践环境中对连续的患者进行压痛点检查、纤维肌痛调查标准(区域疼痛量表评分≥8且疲劳评分≥6)以及临床诊断评估。
结果
在206例患者中,临床医生诊断为纤维肌痛的占49.0%,而符合ACR标准的占29.1%,符合调查标准的占40.3%。临床标准与调查标准在74.8%的病例中一致(kappa = 0.49 [95%置信区间0.36, 0.60])。临床标准与ACR标准在75.2%的病例中一致(kappa = 0.50 [95%置信区间0.35, 0.59]),调查标准与ACR标准在72.3%的病例中一致(kappa = 0.40 [95%置信区间0.25, 0.51])。ACR压痛点标准(≥11个)在临床和调查标准中并非一个因素。然而,压痛点计数在临床诊断中有用。
结论
临床诊断与ACR及调查标准具有中度一致性(72 - 75%),且涉及共同的症状和体格检查发现。由于纤维肌痛诊断没有金标准,并且纤维肌痛常被视为一种特质性诊断,所有诊断方法都有其用途。调查方法的优点是不需要体格检查。