Arthritis Diseases Center, National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases, and University of Wichita School of Medicine, Wichita, Kansas.
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Mar;71(3):343-351. doi: 10.1002/acr.23731. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
Recent studies have suggested that fibromyalgia is inaccurately diagnosed in the community, and that ~75% of persons reporting a physician diagnosis of fibromyalgia would not satisfy published criteria. To investigate possible diagnostic misclassification, we compared expert physician diagnosis with published criteria.
In a university rheumatology clinic, 497 patients completed the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MD-HAQ) and the 2010 American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria modified for self-administration during their ordinary medical visits. Patients were evaluated and diagnosed by university rheumatology staff.
Of the 497 patients, 121 (24.3%) satisfied the fibromyalgia criteria, while 104 (20.9%) received a clinician International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis of fibromyalgia. The agreement between clinicians and criteria was 79.2%. However, agreement beyond chance was only fair (κ = 0.41). Physicians failed to identify 60 criteria-positive patients (49.6%) and incorrectly identified 43 criteria-negative patients (11.4%). In a subset of 88 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the kappa value was 0.32, indicating slight to fair agreement. Universally, higher polysymptomatic distress scores and criteria-based diagnosis were associated with more abnormal MD-HAQ clinical scores. Women and patients with more symptoms but fewer pain areas were more likely to receive a clinician's diagnosis than to satisfy fibromyalgia criteria.
There is considerable disagreement between ICD clinical diagnosis and criteria-based diagnosis of fibromyalgia, calling into question ICD-based studies. Fibromyalgia criteria were easy to use, but problems regarding clinician bias, meaning of a fibromyalgia diagnosis, and the validity of physician diagnosis were substantial.
最近的研究表明,纤维肌痛在社区中的诊断并不准确,约有 75%报告有医生诊断为纤维肌痛的人不符合已发表的标准。为了研究可能存在的诊断错误分类,我们将专家医生的诊断与已发表的标准进行了比较。
在一所大学风湿病诊所,497 名患者在普通就诊期间完成了多维健康评估问卷(MD-HAQ)和 2010 年美国风湿病学会初步诊断标准的修订版自我评估。由大学风湿病工作人员对患者进行评估和诊断。
在 497 名患者中,有 121 名(24.3%)符合纤维肌痛标准,而有 104 名(20.9%)患者的临床医生国际疾病分类(ICD)诊断为纤维肌痛。临床医生和标准之间的一致性为 79.2%。然而,一致性仅为中等(κ=0.41)。医生未能识别出 60 名符合标准的阳性患者(49.6%),并错误地识别出 43 名不符合标准的阴性患者(11.4%)。在 88 名类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的亚组中,kappa 值为 0.32,表明一致性为轻微至中等。普遍来说,较高的多症状困扰评分和基于标准的诊断与更多异常 MD-HAQ 临床评分相关。女性和症状较多但疼痛区域较少的患者更有可能被临床医生诊断,而不是符合纤维肌痛标准。
ICD 临床诊断与纤维肌痛的基于标准的诊断之间存在很大差异,这对基于 ICD 的研究提出了质疑。纤维肌痛标准易于使用,但在临床医生的偏见、纤维肌痛诊断的含义以及医生诊断的有效性方面存在重大问题。