Pain Assessment in Patients With Fibromyalgia Syndrome

Williams, David A.; Gendreau, Michael; Hufford, Michael R.; Groner, Kimberly H.; Gracely, Richard H.; Clauw, Daniel J.

doi:10.1097/00002508-200409000-00010

Cited by 47 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, the 6-month active comparator trial utilized a monthly composite scale to assess signs and symptoms of endometriosis, similar to studies with previously approved medications for the treatment of endometriosis ( 14 , 15 ). These monthly recall scales are known to have a recall bias that may not accurately reflect day-to-day pain variability ( 16 ). Similar problems have been reported with weekly recall scales when compared with daily pain diaries ( 17 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elagolix, an Oral GnRH Antagonist for Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Study

Carr

Giudice

Dmowski³

et al. 2013

Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy of elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain.MethodsThis was a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled parallel group study conducted at 37 US centers, consisting of an 8-week double-blind period followed by a 16-week open-label period. Patients were 137 women aged 18 to 49, with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis and moderate to severe nonmenstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea, who were administered elagolix 150 mg daily or placebo. The primary outcomes of the study were the daily assessment of dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain and dyspareunia using a modified Biberoglu-Behrman scale.ResultsDuring the double-blind period, there were significantly greater mean reductions from baseline to week 8 in dysmenorrhea (-1.13 ± 0.11 vs. −0.37 ± 0.11, p<0.0001), nonmenstrual pelvic pain (-0.47 ± 0.07 vs. −0.19 ± 0.07, p = 0.0066), and dyspareunia scores (-0.61 ± 0.10 vs. −0.23 ± 0.10, p = 0.0070) in the elagolix group compared with placebo. Continued improvements were observed during the open-label treatment regardless of initial treatment allocation. Elagolix treatment was also associated with significant improvements in quality-of-life measures during the double-blind and open-label periods. The most common adverse events occurring with elagolix were nausea, headache and hot flush, each in 9.9% of patients.ConclusionElagolix effectively reduced endometriosis-associated pelvic pain over a 24-week period and was well-tolerated.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elagolix, an Oral GnRH Antagonist for Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Study

Carr

Giudice

Dmowski³

et al. 2013

Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fourteen studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria were identified. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Reasons for exclusion included non-pain populations (n = 8), non-chronic populations (n = 5), no psychometric comparisons (n = 5), not EMA (n = 5), and conference abstracts without data (n = 6). All included studies were written in English.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…39 The chronic pain conditions studied were osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, spinal cord injury, low back pain, generalized musculoskeletal pain, irritable bowel syndrome, and headache. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Ethnicity was not consistently reported; however, samples were mainly made up of Caucasian participants in studies that reported ethnicity details. Three studies were made up of a majority of Colombian 51 and Spanish 50 and 1 of Dutch 43 participants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Details of the EMA used in the 14 studies are presented in Table 2. Studies used a range of EMA methods, including electronic diaries (palmtop computers and mobile phones), 38,39,43,44,[47][48][49][50]52 pen and paper, [41][42][43] and smartwatches. 40,46 Survey scheduling and notifications were either random-stratified (randomly administered within specified time blocks), non-random fixed (administered at specific times of the day), event-contingent (after a certain event), or relied on patient memory.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain Valid and Reliable? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overton

Ward

Swain

et al. 2022

The Clinical Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in populations with persistent pain.Materials and Methods: Five databases were searched from 1980 to December 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full text, extracted data, and assessed adherence to reporting standards and methodological rigor before evaluating the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis, including the pooling of correlations for the relevant EMA pain outcomes, was completed.

show abstract

“…Two symptoms that are commonly cited in the recall literature, and that are experienced by individuals with CFS, are pain and fatigue. Pain has been studied under a variety of contexts, and within this literature, researchers have found that longer reporting periods lead to greater biases and reduced accuracy (Broderick et al, 2008; Stone, Broderick, Kaell, DelesPaul, & Porter, 2000; Stone, Broderick, Shiffman, Litcher-Kelly, & Calvanese, 2003; Stone, Schwartz, Broderick, & Shiffman, 2005; Williams et al, 2004). Research on the recall of pain and fatigue levels across different reporting periods suggests that when patients are asked to recall their symptoms, their recall accuracy weakens over the course of seven days (Broderick et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Time Frame on the Recall Reliability of CFS Symptoms

Evans

Jason

2013

Eval Health Prof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study serves as an investigation of the reliability of symptom data as reported by individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), across three recall timeframes (the past week, the past month, and the past six months), and at two assessment points (with one week in between each assessment). Multilevel Model (MLM) Analyses were used to determine the optimal recall timeframe, in terms of test-retest reliability, for each of the Fukuda et al. (1994) case-defining symptoms. Results suggested that the optimal timeframe for reliably reporting CFS symptoms was six months for sore throat, lymph node pain, muscle pain, post-exertional malaise, headaches, memory/concentration difficulties, and unrefreshing sleep. For joint pain, the optimal timeframe was one month. Researchers who are interested in the assessment of CFS symptoms need to take recall timeframe into account, especially when the intended goal is to standardize and improve the methods used to reliably and accurately diagnose this complex illness.

show abstract

Pain Assessment in Patients With Fibromyalgia Syndrome

Cited by 47 publications

References 42 publications

Elagolix, an Oral GnRH Antagonist for Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Study

Elagolix, an Oral GnRH Antagonist for Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Study

Are Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain Valid and Reliable? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of Time Frame on the Recall Reliability of CFS Symptoms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About