An Assessment of Naturopathic Treatments, Health Concerns, and Common Comorbid Conditions in Fibromyalgia Patients: A Retrospective Medical Record Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by chronic pain, with allodynia and hyperalgesia being the most common signs. Many patients with FM explore, express interest, and use complementary and alternative medicine to help manage symptoms and improve quality of life. However, little is known about the clinical recommendations provided by naturopathic doctors (NDs). Objective: To describe trends in assessment and treatment of patients with FM by NDs. Methods: Retrospectively, medical records of 200 patients with the FM ICD-10 code were reviewed from the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic. Of these records, 70 met inclusion criteria and were further analyzed. Comorbid conditions, health concerns, physical and psychological examinations, and treatment were recorded. Patients were excluded if informed consent for research was not signed. The project was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine. Results: Seventy patients met criteria and were included in the current analysis. Most patients identified as female (96%). Vitamin D (57%), magnesium (54%), omega-3 fish oil (53%), acupuncture by an acupuncturist (53%) or an ND (40%), B12 orally or by injection (40%), and probiotics (40%) were highly utilized treatments. A past/current medical history of digestive complaints (64%) and depression/mental illness (63%) were common comorbidities, alongside a history of arthritic conditions (53%) and anxiety (43%). A family history of arthritic conditions (47%) was also prevalent. The Widespread Pain Index and Symptom Severity tool (43%) was used to assess pain and other symptoms. No adverse effects of treatment were readily identifiable. Conclusion: Findings from this study reveal elements of both consistency and variability in the treatment recommendations from NDs in a teaching clinic environment. Future research that assesses or compares treatment recommendations for FM in other settings may be informative to better understand health services, the nature of individualized care, and patient experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".