Canadian Pain Society and Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for Rational Care of Persons with Fibromyalgia. A Summary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the development of evidence-based guidelines for the clinical care of persons with fibromyalgia (FM), taking into account advances in understanding of the pathogenesis of FM, new diagnostic criteria, and new treatment options. METHODS: Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment, and patient followup were drafted according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and following review were endorsed by the Canadian Rheumatology Association and the Canadian Pain Society. RESULTS: FM is a polysymptomatic syndrome presenting a spectrum of severity, with a pivotal symptom of body pain. FM is a positive clinical diagnosis, not a diagnosis of exclusion, and not requiring specialist confirmation. There are no confirmatory laboratory tests, although some investigation may be indicated to exclude other conditions. Ideal care is in the primary care setting, incorporating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic strategies in a multimodal approach with active patient participation. The treatment objective should be reduction of symptoms, but also improved function using a patient-tailored treatment approach that is symptom-based. Self-management strategies combining good lifestyle habits and fostering a strong locus of control are imperative. Medications afford only modest relief, with doses often lower than suggested, and drug combinations used according to clinical judgment. There is a need for continued reassessment of the risk-benefit ratio for any drug treatment. Outcome should be aimed toward functioning within a normal life pattern and any culture of disablement should be discouraged. CONCLUSION: These guidelines should provide the health community with reassurance for the global care of patients with FM with the aim of improving patient outcome by reducing symptoms and maintaining function.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".