4.6 Article

Reduced midbrain raphe echogenicity in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277316

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Wurzburg
  2. Else Kroner-Fresenius-Stiftung [2014_A129]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [UE171/15-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The echogenicity of the midbrain raphe area is reduced in patients with FMS and in patients with depression and physical pain, regardless of the presence or severity of pain, FMS, and depressive symptoms.
Objectives The pathogenesis of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is unclear. Transcranial ultrasonography revealed anechoic alteration of midbrain raphe in depression and anxiety disorders, suggesting affection of the central serotonergic system. Here, we assessed midbrain raphe echogenicity in FMS. Methods Sixty-six patients underwent transcranial sonography, of whom 53 were patients with FMS (27 women, 26 men), 13 patients with major depression and physical pain (all women), and 14 healthy controls (11 women, 3 men). Raphe echogenicity was graded visually as normal or hypoechogenic, and quantified by digitized image analysis, each by investigators blinded to the clinical diagnosis. Results Quantitative midbrain raphe echogenicity was lower in patients with FMS compared to healthy controls (p<0.05), but not different from that of patients with depression and accompanying physical pain. Pain and FMS symptom burden did not correlate with midbrain raphe echogenicity Conclusion We found reduced echogenicity of the midbrain raphe area in patients with FMS and in patients with depression and physical pain, independent of the presence or severity of pain, FMS, and depressive symptoms. Further exploration of this sonographic finding is necessary before this objective technique may enter diagnostic algorithms in FMS and depression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available