Clinicians' perspective of the current diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is one of the most common chronic musculoskeletal pain disorders. However, MPS is often under-diagnosed. The purpose of this study was to characterize practicing clinicians' perspectives of the current diagnostic criteria for MPS. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used with a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire evaluated clinicians' perspective of the current diagnostic criteria for MPS. The sample population (n= 119) consisted of 40% family physicians, 31% physical medicine (PM) and rehabilitation specialists, 11% rheumatologists, 10% emergency room (ER) physicians, and 8% anesthesiologists specializing in chronic pain. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrated that participating clinicians agree that ``point tenderness'' and ``pain reproduction'' are criteria for MPS. In contrast, the clinicians do not consider ``autonomic symptoms'' as an important criterion for MPS. The anesthesiologists view ``restricted range of motion'' as a criterion for MPS more than the other groups, and they tend to consider ``referred pain'' and ``pain reproduction'' as criteria. Physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists and anesthesiologists tend to view ``local twitch response'' more as a criterion for MPS compared with the other groups. Most groups of clinicians consider ``weakness without atrophy'' as an important MPS criterion except for family physicians. It is important to note that ``poor sleep'', ``daytime fatigue'' and ``cognitive symptoms'', which are not considered as MPS symptoms, are often mistaken for MPS among practicing clinicians. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the diagnostic criteria are not well known, highlighting the need for an expert consensus to determine the importance of each criterion for MPS diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".