Carneiro Adriana Munhoz, de Góes Salvetti Marina, Dale Camila Squarzoni, da Silva Valquíria Aparecida
Mood Disorders Department-Pro Gruda, Institute of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation Service, Psychiatry Department, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Biomedicines. 2025 Apr 17;13(4):988. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13040988.
: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is one of the most reliable methods for assessing Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS). Despite its importance, there are still controversies regarding the correct interpretation of evoked responses, as they may vary depending on the protocol, individual characteristics, disease severity, and other factors. This study aims to examine how QST has been applied as an outcome measure in FMS. : We considered three databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) until June 2024. From a total of 2512 studies, 126 (39 RCTs and 87 non-RCTs) were selected for full reading after assessment for risk of bias and eligibility criteria. These criteria included at least one type of QST and a clear diagnosis of fibromyalgia (FMS). : The results highlighted a lack of standardization in QST, as no reported protocols were followed and there was no specific number of tender points tested for FMS. Additionally, there was inconsistency in the selection of sites and types of tests conducted. : This heterogeneity in methodology may affect the comparability and interpretation of results, underscoring the urgent need for standardized guidelines for conducting QST in fibromyalgia studies. A clear understanding of how QST has been measured could prompt a reevaluation of current approaches to FMS assessment, leading to more accurate interpretations and, ultimately, improved management of this complex condition.
定量感觉测试(QST)是评估纤维肌痛综合征(FMS)最可靠的方法之一。尽管其很重要,但对于诱发反应的正确解读仍存在争议,因为它们可能因方案、个体特征、疾病严重程度和其他因素而有所不同。本研究旨在探讨QST如何作为FMS的一项结局指标应用。
我们检索了截至2024年6月的三个数据库(Medline、Embase和Web of Science)。在对2512项研究进行偏倚风险评估和纳入标准评估后,选择了126项研究(39项随机对照试验和87项非随机对照试验)进行全文阅读。这些标准包括至少一种类型的QST以及明确的纤维肌痛(FMS)诊断。
结果突出表明QST缺乏标准化,因为没有遵循报告的方案,也没有针对FMS测试的特定压痛点数量。此外,在测试部位和测试类型的选择上存在不一致。
这种方法上的异质性可能会影响结果的可比性和解读,强调在纤维肌痛研究中进行QST迫切需要标准化指南。清楚了解QST是如何测量的,可能会促使重新评估当前FMS评估方法,从而得出更准确的解读,并最终改善对这种复杂病症的管理。
Biomedicines. 2025-4-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1