No pain, no gain: Measuring treatment effects in fybromyalgia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Thesis introduction and outlineThis thesis, although written by a rheumatologist, originates from a patient initiative.In 1996 Ben Weerdmeester chaired the Dutch association of fibromyalgia patients FES (Fibromyalgiepatiënten Eendrachtig Sterk).Individual patients suffering from fibromyalgia had experienced positive results from thalasso therapy, a form of balneotherapy popular in Mediterranean countries.The executive committee of the FES thought it sensible to research this form of treatment scientifically and were willing to invest money in such a study.In an open pilot study, 14 patients visited a thalasso centre in Hammamet, Tunisia, and were enthusiastic about the treatment.Further funding for the project was granted by the Dutch Arthritis Association (Vereniging Nationaal Reumafonds) and the Foundation for Fundraising in Public Health (Stichting Fondsenwervingsacties Volksgezondheid).By the summer of 1998, I was asked to join this project.At that time I was specialising in Rheumatology, while also collecting data for the development of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Articular Damage score (RAAD).I was asked to change my subject from 'objective joint damage in a hardcore rheumatic disease' to 'alternative treatment of subjective symptoms in a chronic pain syndrome', which is something quite different.The study protocol looked solid, however, and the inclusion of a cost-effectiveness analysis made it less 'soft'.It seemed a unique and challenging project to me.Somewhat hesitantly I accepted the job.Chapter 1 of this thesis presents an overview of what was known about fibromyalgia at the time and what has been added to the literature since.By the end of March 1999, a first group of patients went to Jerba, Tunisia, followed by a second and third group in May 2000.I was pleased with their enthusiasm during the spa treatment.During follow-up it was encouraging to see the dedication of the participants, both in the intervention group and in the control group.The effects of spa treatment on FM symptoms and health-related quality of life are described in chapter 2. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in chapter 3.With the follow-up of the spa study still going on, a new study opportunity arose.A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was set up to study if the antidepressant venlafaxine was superior to placebo in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms.This trial is described in chapter 4. At the time when we were conducting this study, an article was published on a RCT studying the effect of fluoxetine, also an antidepressant, in FM [1].Much to our surprise, in this RCT no improvement was described in patients taking placebo.This is in sharp contrast with most other drug trials for FM.We commented on this lack of a placebo effect in a Letter to the Editor, which is included as chapter 5 in this thesis.In both our trials the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was one of the outcome measures.Since our Dutch translation of the FIQ had not been validated yet, we also included various questionnaires for which a validated Dutch version existed.Using the data sets from both trials, we tested whether our version of the FIQ was a valid outcome measure of health-related quality of life in FM patients.The results of this validati-Chapter 1 C h a p t e r 2 Spa treatment for primary fibromyalgia syndrome: A combination of thalassotherapy, exercise and patient education improves symptoms and quality of life
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».