MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007373450 · doi:10.1155/2014/408436

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia

2014· article· en· W2007373450 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jost Langhorst, Winfried Häuser, Romy Lauche, Serge Perrot, Cayetano Alegre, Piercarlo Sarzi‐Puttini

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibromyalgiaMedicineHomeopathyAcupunctureFibromyalgia syndromeDistressAlternative medicinePhysical therapyPopulationDiseaseRegimenChronic painPolyclinicPsychiatryInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a chronic condition characterized by chronic widespread pain, fatigue, cognitive disturbances, sleep disorders, and somatic and psychological distress [1, 2]. Between 2.9 and 3.8% of the general population in Europe and the US are affected [3–5], with 9 times as many women as men in clinical settings [2]. Many patients with fibromyalgia use complementary and alternative therapies to cope with their disease. A recent consumers report indicated that 67.0% of German FMS patients used heat application or thermal baths, 35.2% different CAM medications such as homeopathy, dietary supplements, and vitamins, 34.6% some kind of diet, 28.5% tool-based physical therapies such as acupuncture, and 18.4% meditative exercises such as yoga or tai chi [6]. In summary, almost every FMS patient had used at least one CAM therapy for the management of FMS. In an Internet sample of US American FMS patients, the frequencies were slightly higher [7]. CAM use in FMS patients is associated with younger age, female gender, and higher overall disease burden [8, 9]. Contrary to the frequent use, only limited research has been conducted on complementary and alternative therapies so far. Data on efficacy and safety are however necessary to judge their value within the treatment regimen. Without reliable information, such therapies that might benefit FMS patients will also not be included in standard care; therapies with a negative benefit-risk ratio on the other hand might be applied despite doubts about their effects. This special issue aimed to facilitate publication of research of complementary and alternative therapies for the fibromyalgia syndrome. The papers published in this special issue were carefully selected to display a great variety of different research topics. In the following, a short overview of included papers will be provided. M.-A. Fitzcharles et al. took a closer look at classification and clinical diagnosis of the fibromyalgia syndrome. Three evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines from Canada, Germany, and Israel were compared in terms of definition and diagnostic procedures, and consistent results have been found for all three guidelines. The results of this review further implied the importance of evidence-based guidelines for health care providers. J. N. Ablin et al. summarized the recommendations of those guidelines with a special emphasis on CAM therapies. While all guidelines supported patient-tailored approaches, recommendations differed, especially regarding CAM. Discrepancies were also present regarding the levels of evidence and the strengths of recommendation. Contrary to Germany and Israel, where some CAM therapies were recommended, no CAM treatment was recommended according to the Canadian guidelines. This supports the need for high-quality research. Three papers reported on clinical trials. In the so-called KAFA-trial, C. S. Kessler et al. investigated the feasibility and efficacy of an additive complex Ayurvedic treatment in 32 FMS patients, using a nonrandomized controlled study design. All patients received conventional care during an inpatient hospital admission with elements of physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, exercise, and cognitive behavioral and occupational therapies. The Ayurvedic group also received individual treatment regimen including massages, diets, yoga, and self-help strategies. At the end of two weeks, different parameters including quality of life, pain, and sleep quality were assessed. A prospective observational trial by K. Kraft et al. with 70 patients tested the effects of vibration massage using a deep oscillation device. Patients were treated twice weekly for five weeks and followed up for two months. Outcomes included safety and tolerability, symptom severity, and quality of life. Finally, J. Sawynok et al. reported the results of an extension trial that investigated 20 FMS patients who had been included in a trial on the effects of qigong for six months. Outcomes included quantitative measures such as pain intensity, disability and quality of life, and qualitative comments of participants. Another four manuscripts reported the results of reviews; one of them was a narrative review and three were systematic reviews, partially with meta-analyses. J. N. Ablin et al. provided a qualitative-narrative review and a historical perspective on the use of spa treatment for fibromyalgia. The authors not only included clinical trials, but also publications regarding the history, the implementation of spa therapy, and related practices in different cultures and provided the readers with a comprehensive overview. Another review by S. S. Nascimento et al. systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of medicinal plants or related natural products for fibromyalgia. Eight randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis; possible benefits and harms were investigated. R. Lauche et al. aimed to summarize the efficacy and safety of qigong trials. Seven randomized controlled trials with 395 were included and the authors analyzed whether quality of life and other key symptoms were altered by qigong interventions. An established tool to formulate recommendation for clinical practice was also applied. And J. A. Glombiewski et al. conducted a systematic review on EMG and EEG-Biofeedback for FMS. Seven randomized controlled trials were included based on 321 patients. Together these reviews provide up to date information about the state of scientific evidence for the respective topics. The authors are confident that this special issue will provide readers with an insightful cross-section of current FMS research topics and facilitate further high-quality research in the CAM field for the sake of FMS patients. Jost Langhorst Winfried Hauser Romy Lauche Serge Perrot Cayetano Alegre Piercarlo C. Sarzi Puttini

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207