Fibromyalgia syndrome

• Published in: Journal of rheumatology Vol. 32; no. 11; p. 2270
• Main Authors: Mease, Philip J, Clauw, Daniel J, Arnold, Lesley M, Goldenberg, Don L, Witter, James, Williams, David A, Simon, Lee S, Strand, C Vibeke, Bramson, Candace, Martin, Susan, Wright, Timothy M, Littman, Bruce, Wernicke, J F, Gendreau, R Michael, Crofford, Leslie J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada 01.11.2005
• Subjects: Delphi Technique; Fibromyalgia - therapy; Humans; Quality of Health Care; Rheumatology - standards; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0315-162X; 1499-2752

The objectives of the first OMERACT Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FM) Workshop were to identify and prioritize symptom domains that should be consistently evaluated in FM clinical trials, and to identify aspects of domains and outcome measures that should be part of a concerted research agenda of FM researchers. Such an effort will help standardize and improve the quality of outcomes research in FM. A principal assumption in this workshop has been that there exists a clinical syndrome, generally known as FM, characterized by chronic widespread pain typically associated with fatigue, sleep disturbance, mood disturbance, and other symptoms and signs, and considered to be related to central neuromodulatory dysregulation. FM can be diagnosed using 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria. In preparation for the workshop a Delphi exercise involving 23 FM researchers was conducted to establish a preliminary prioritization of domains of inquiry. At the OMERACT meeting, the workshop included presentation of the Delphi results; a review of placebo-controlled trials of FM treatment, with a focus on the outcome measures used and their performance; a panel discussion of the key issues in FM trials, from both an investigator and regulatory agency perspective; and a voting process by the workshop attendees. The results of the workshop were presented in the plenary session on the final day of the meeting. A prioritized list of domains of FM to be investigated was thus developed, key issues and controversies in the field were debated, and consensus on a research agenda on outcome measure development was reached.