Methodenreport zur Erstellung der Leitlinie

Abstract

The guidelines were published in several forms: complete and short scientific versions, clinical practice and patient versions. The English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").

Classification and Clinical Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia Syndrome: Recommendations of Recent Evidence-Based Interdisciplinary Guidelines

“…FMS opinion leaders reported two guidelines. Three of these met our inclusion criteria: the 2012 Canadian Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of fibromyalgia syndrome [10], the guidelines of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) on the definition, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome [11–19], and the Israeli guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome [20]. The reasons for excluding other hits were as follows: duplications ( n = 19), not commissioned by a scientific society ( n = 2) [21, 22].…”

“…The methodological development of the guidelines was supported by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), the umbrella organisation of 152 scientific medical societies in Germany. Nine scientific associations (children and juvenile rheumatology, neurology, orthopedic surgery, pain medicine, pain psychology, physical therapy, and rehabilitation medicine, rheumatology, psychiatry, and psychosomatic medicine) and two national FMS self-help organisations participated in the guidelines development [11]. …”

“…The levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [23] by the Canadian and German guidelines [10, 11]. Both guidelines defined criteria for up- and downgrading the level of evidence.…”

“…All three countries justified the need for development of guidelines on the basis of the high prevalence of FMS and the association of reduced health-related quality of life of patients and high healthcare costs as well as controversies surrounding diagnosis and management [10, 11, 20]. The prevalence rates of FMS—assessed by different methodologies—were comparable between the three countries: Canada 2-3% [25], Germany 2.1% [5], and Israel 2.6% [3].…”

12 Jahre S3-Leitlinie Fibromyalgiesyndrom – ein nie endender Krieg?

“…Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin (DEGAM) beteiligte sich nicht an den beiden Aktualisierungen der Leitlinie, weil ihr Vertreter in der Steuergruppe der ersten Fassung der Leitlinie den Gebrauch der Diagnose im Kontext der Hausarztmedizin ablehnt [5]. Bei der vorliegenden Aktualisierung schieden vier Vertreter der Gesellschaft für Kinder-und Jugendrheumatologie aus der Leitliniengruppe aus, weil sie nicht mit der Verwendung der Diagnose FMS bei Kindern und Jugendlichen einverstanden waren, aus Sorge um einen negativen Einfluss der Diagnose auf die Betroffenen bei günstigerer Prognose in dieser Patientengruppe im Vergleich zu Erwachsenen [2] [13].…”