| Title |
Convergence between the 1990 and 2010 ACR diagnostic criteria and validation of the Spanish version of the Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Rheumatology International, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00296-014-3074-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. T. Carrillo-de-la-Peña, Y. Triñanes, A. González-Villar, S. Romero-Yuste, C. Gómez-Perretta, M. Arias, F. Wolfe |
| Abstract |
(1) To assess the degree of convergence between the 1990 and 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) diagnostic criteria; (2) To evaluate the validity and reliability of the 2010 ACR criteria; (3) To validate the Spanish version of the Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ); and (4) To assess the utility of the FSQ to differentiate fibromyalgia (FM) subgroups by disease severity. In the first study, agreement between the 1990 and 2010 ACR criteria for FM diagnosis was analyzed in a sample of 80 FM patients and 59 healthy controls. Algometry (mean threshold and tender points count) and the 2010 ACR indices [Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Widespread Index (WPI) and Polysymptomatic Distress Scale (PSD)] were correlated with the key symptoms of FM and with indices of disease interference and quality of life. In a second study, we evaluated the validity and internal consistency of the Spanish version of the FSQ, as well as its ability to discriminate between groups of FM patients with low and high symptom severity. There is good agreement between the 1990 and 2010 ACR criteria for FM diagnosis. The 2010 ACR indices (SSS, WPI and PSD) demonstrated very adequate construct validity and appeared to be useful in the assessment of disease severity and global impact of FM. The FSQ had good internal consistency and validity and showed 100 % concordance with 2010 ACR criteria applied by a clinician. In addition, the FSQ proved to be useful in differentiating FM severity subgroups. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 79 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 22 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 23% |
| Psychology | 13 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,444,605
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#800
of 2,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,682
of 228,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#14
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.