4.0 Review

General treatment principles, coordination of care and patient education in fibromyalgia syndrome Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles

期刊

SCHMERZ
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 246-254

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00482-017-0201-6

关键词

Fibromyalgia syndrome; Review,systematic; Guidelines; Patient education; Shared decision making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was scheduled for April 2017. The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n =8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A search of the literature for systematic reviews on randomized, controlled trials on patient education and shared decision-making from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The strength of recommendations was achieved by multiple step formalized procedures to reach a consensus. Efficacy, risks, patient preferences, clinical and practical applicability of available therapies were weighed up against each other. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines. The diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome should be explicitly communicated to the affected individual. Shared decision-making with the patient on the therapeutic options based on individual preferences of the patient, comorbidities and the success of previous treatment is recommended. A step-wise treatment approach depending on the severity of fibromyalgia syndrome and the response to therapeutic measures is recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据