906

Review articles

Fibromyalgia syndrome, a problem of tautology

SummaryFibromyalgia syndrome is generally taken to denote a clinicalstate of widespread musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, and

fatigue but its pathophysiology, physical and psychological, isunknown, and the nature of the diagnostically mandatory"tender points" remains obscure. Diagnostic criteria convey nopathophysiological insight and they have been "validated" viaa circular argument in which the evidence on which the

construct is based is taken as proof of its veracity. The conceptof fibromyalgia syndrome is valid only in the sense that it

includes all possibilities. An alternative approach to this veryreal clinical presentation is via secondary hyperalgesia.

Lancet 1993; 342: 906-09

Introduction

According to the "Copenhagen declaration", fibromyalgiasyndrome (FS) is now established as a distinctive diagnosis,defined as a "painful, non-articular condition

predominantly involving muscles" and as the "commonestcause of chronic, widespread musculoskeletal pain". Thusa pain syndrome is said to define itself. The characteristicfeatures of fibromyalgia are "tender points", the nature ofwhich remains elusive. No distinctive tissue pathology,pathophysiology, or psychopathology has been found.2-5The declaration recommends criteria put forward by theAmerican College of Rheumatology in 1990.6 These criteriaare the latest in a series, all suffering from the problem ofsyndromic diagnosis where variable combinations offeatures are put forward as an entity, which then impliespathogenetic homogeneity (table 1).6--8 All rely on tenderpoints, in the absence of their clinicophysiologicalexplanation, a situation which invites circular argument.The existence of the clinical problem labelled FS is not in

dispute but it has become a tautological concept, one thatcan be shown to be true because it includes all possibilities.We seek a more rational approach to diffusemusculoskeletal pain, concentrating on establishing a

clinicopathological basis as a way out of the circularity thatcharacterises this syndrome.

Department of Rheumatology, St Vincent’s Hospital, and Universityof New South Wales, Sydney (M L Cohen MD); and St John of GodMedical Centre, Perth, Western Australia (J L Quintner MRCP)

Correspondence to: Dr Milton L Cohen, Department of Rheumatology,St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia

Tender points .

Although tender points are the hallmark of this diagnosis,their number, location, and how to measure the tendernessare contentious. Tenderness (more correctly,hyperalgesia9) has been measured by direct digitalpalpation or by pressure dolorimetry. Both pain threshold(discrimination of nociceptive quality) and pain tolerance,reflecting unwillingness to receive more stimuli, have beenused as indices but their underlying mechanisms are verydifferent.lo,11 Pressure algometry is a psychophysicaltechnique in which a varying stimulus is applied until apredetermined pain response by the subject occurs. It isvery difficult to offer this mechanical stimulus randomly orto include supramaximal stimuli and a degree of expectancycannot be avoided. Both the length of the scale and the sizeof the footplate of the dolorimeter affect threshold

responses.12 Pressure algometry has nonetheless been themajor investigative tool used in attempting to validate theconstruct of FS:

(1) Only one study has found reduced threshold and tolerance forpressure-induced pain in "fibrositis" patients over "tender

points" but not over control (non-tender) points .13(2) Lower pain threshold and pain tolerance over one non-tenderpoint at the elbow was found in fibrositis patients compared withconrols.14

(3) A third study, looking at pain threshold only, found thatpatients were more sensitive than controls at both tender andnon-tender points and that the difference between patients andcontrols over non-tender points was the more impressive.1s(4) Lower pain tolerance (only) was found in 19 of 75 artibraryanatomical sites in fibromyalgia patients, which included tenderand non-tender points.16(5) Using pressure algometry in patients fulfilling older criteria forFS8 and in control groups with "articular" (rheumatoid arthritisand osteoarthritis) and "generalised non-articular" rheumatism,Quimby et al found that pain tolerance at tender points correlatedwith tolerance at non-tender points but that the presence of tenderpoints did not correlate with any symptoms.17 Furthermore abouthalf of the individual variability in pain tolerance at tender pointscould be accounted for by the patients’ general tolerance level forpressure-induced pain.

Dolorimetry thus suggests that fibromyalgia patients aremore sensitive than controls, not only at tender points butalso at non-tender points, which calls into question thediscriminative validity of those points. The tender pointsseem to reflect either a state of more general somaticawareness or one of hyperalgesia rather than a distinctpathological entity.

American College of Rheumatology studySemantic issues

The 1990 report of the American College of Rheumatology(ACR) study is the basis for current diagnostic criteria forFS-namely, a history of widespread pain and pain in 11

907

Table 1: Comparison of criteria sets for FS

out of 18 tender point sites on digital palpation."Widespread pain" was defined as pain on the left and rightsides of the body plus pain above and below the waist plusaxial skeletal pain (cervical spine or anterior chest orthoracic spine or low back pain). Furthermore shoulderpain and buttock pain were each defined as "involved side"pain whilst low back pain was defined as "below waist"pain. Thus pain in one shoulder, the contralateral buttockand the anterior chest would be "widespread" pain. Aresponse of "tender" was held not to imply pain whengrading the severity of tender points; only a specificcomplaint of "pain" was acceptable. Yet "tenderness" isthe synonym for hyperalgesia, which by definition is anincreased painful response to a noxious stimulus andincludes a painful response to a stimulus not normallynoxious.9 This semantic distinction is clearly artificial withobvious potential for biased interpretation.

Patients and controls

Each investigator used his or her own criteria for diagnosis, thusinviting circular argument. Furthermore, the controls for

"primary fibromyalgia" were the "next age- and sex-matchedpatient with neck pain syndromes, low back pain syndromes, local(regional) tendonitis, trauma-related pain syndromes and possibleSLE, RA or other disorders" (emphasis added). Surely this was anexercise in syndrome substitution, not justified on

pathophysiological grounds. The controls for "secondaryfibromyalgia" were the "next age- and sex-matched patient withthe [same diagnosis] but without fibromyalgia". All criteria

depended upon tender points yet these points were not sought inpeople not complaining of widespread pain; so, on the basis ofpatient selection alone, the study was doomed to being unable to doother than confirm the prejudged features common to all

investigators.

Clinical algometryDigital palpation was performed over, originally, 24 "active" and 6control sites. A response of "tender" was considered not to denote

pain and scored 0 (no pain). 4 was "unbearable" pain where thepatient was unable to be touched; 1 + denoted "mild or greater"pain whilst 2 + denoted "moderate or greater" pain. These scoreswere used to generate "average tenderness" and the prevalence ofsites of nominated degrees of tenderness, without evidence that thesubjects treated these ordinal categories as equally spaced. Thedata were subjected to statistical analysis using the t-distributionwhen non-parametric analysis was more appropriate.11,18 Thisprocedure not only translated the categorical responses into aframework which implied ratio scale properties but also generatedresults with no ready clinical meaning. What does an averagetenderness of 1 -5 mean?

Dolorimetry was done over 6 active and 3 control sites, whichgenerated a mean score expressed in kg per 1 54 cm2. There was aceiling of 6-5 kg, which may have biased mean scores towardssmaller values. The SEs for scores over control sites were an orderof magnitude greater than those over active sites and there was littledifference between scores over control sites in FS patients (mean51 [SE 0-79]) and those over active sites in controls (4-9 [SE 008])

Conclusions from ACR studyThe four main qualitative conclusions were that palpationwas more discriminating than dolorimetry in identifyingtender points; that tender points were the most powerfuldiscriminators between fibromyalgia patients and controls;that the greatest discriminating power lay in tendernessscores of "mild or greater"; and that the "best separationbetween patients and controls occurred at about thethirteenth point for mild tenderness and at about the sixthpoint for moderate or greater tenderness".6 6The first conclusion is a blow for all who attempt to

quantify hyperalgesia by measurement. The second andthird simply reiterate the basis on which the FS patientswere chosen-indeed any other result would have refutedthe basis for selection. The fourth conclusion simply meansthat the more tender you are the more likely you are to bedistinguished from those not so tender.One main quantitative conclusion concerned the number

of tender points required for diagnosis (whilst not statingwhich ones were important): the ACR committee "reducedthe number of tender points required for examination from24 to 18" before determining that any 11 of these 18provided the best diagnostic criterion for FS.6 Thisconclusion recalls the point made by Quimby et al 17 that ifthe degree of tenderness itself fails to be a criterion, the onlydistinction of FS from non-FS is the number of tender

points.Sensitivity and specificity figures were also generated.

Table 2 adds to table 6 in the ACR study the false positiverate and the likelihood ratio (the odds that, given the statedfeature, the patient has the disease), both calculated fromdata in the paper. Widespread pain, as defined, generated alikelihood ratio of only 1-4; 22% of those considered not tohave FS had the number of tender points required for thatdiagnosis; sensitivity for tender points in FS was less than100%, despite the fact that these were the basis for thediagnosis; the ACR criteria themselves had 90% sensitivity

Sensitivity and specificity values (%) taken from table 6 of ACR report;’ false positive rates (%)and likelihood ratios calculated from these values.

Table 2: In search of gold standard for FS

908

and 20% false-positivity rates; and the best likelihood ratiostill depends on the number of tender points, in whichcontext previous criteria7 perform better. What conditiondid the 19 % false-positives have? And what is the diagnosisin the "variable proportion of otherwise typical patients"1who have less than 11 tender points? Quimby et al 17 foundthat no symptoms or combination of symptoms correlatedwith the presence, frequency, or sensitivity of tenderpoints.What then is the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of FS?

It cannot be "widespread pain"; "pain all over" is morelikely but is not well defined. The only possibility is anumber of tender points, the major contributor to thecombination criteria. However, it is a fallacy to have a goldstandard which incorporates the diagnostic feature ofinterest. 19

FS as tautology"Tender points are inherently more tender than non-tender points, whether one is dealing with normal orfibromyalgia patients."15 Selecting on the basis of pain andhyperalgesia must generate a high degree of accuracy ifthose criteria are then used to justify the selection. It istherefore a major concern if the sensitivity and specificityfigures thereby generated fail to reflect that accuracy. Theevidence which leads one to a proposition cannot then beused to justify the validity of that proposition .20Thus FS is a tautology as the proposed criterion of a

specified number of "tender points" can be violated tooeasily, thus blurring any distinction between it and "non-fibromyalgia". Furthermore, how can 20% of subjectssatisfy the criteria and not be said to have fibromyalgia,especially when it is claimed that fibromyalgia can coexistwith "any other condition"?6 The argument remains

hopelessly circular.

Resolution

We suggest that there has been a conceptual jump from"tender points" to "FS" without pathophysiologicalexplication. The central problem of the pain itself is ignoredand attention is focused away from understanding thehyperalgesia towards "making a diagnosis".The key to resolving the problem of the external validity

of FS may be found in the phenomenon of secondaryhyperalgesia. Whilst primary hyperalgesia is localised tothe site of injury and persists until the injury is healed,secondary hyperalgesia occurs in undamaged tissues, theinnervation of which is in the same or adjacent segments tothat of the noxious stimulus. Cutaneous secondaryhyperalgesia may be associated with noxious stimulation ofeither deep or superficial tissues. Furthermore whilst

primary hyperalgesia is characterised by lowering of boththreshold and tolerance to thermal and mechanical

stimulation, in secondary hyperalgesia these thresholds arenormal whilst tolerance is again lowered.:u,22 FS can thus beappreciated clinically as a syndrome featuring secondaryhyperalgesia.A recent study using non-noxious electrocutaneous

stimulation in patients fulfilling criteria for FS found littlechange in perception threshold but marked reduction inpain tolerance in comparison with controls. These findingswere considered to be a psychophysical demonstration ofsecondary hyperalgesia.23The physiology of secondary hyperalgesia itself may

be approached as a perturbation of nociception,24,25

as a problem of somatic preoccupation("hypervigilance"),17,26.27 or as a combination of the two.These processes may well converge on the central pathwaysinvolved in nociception. Pursuit of the proposal that

secondary hyperalgesia is the relevant mechanism

underlying FS will need to focus on nociceptivemechanisms and on the identification of the initiatingfactors, to which the observed phenomena are secondary.Recent work has suggested that the altered central

processing considered to be responsible for secondaryhyperalgesia depends on continuing peripheral input,especially from nociceptors.25,28,29Medical classifications are not meant to establish

absolute truths, being attempts to provide practical ways ofgrouping phenomena to allow comparisons and to promoteunderstanding.3 3 However, the construct of FS is

tautologous and lacks both explanatory power and

therapeutic implications. The clinical challenge ofmusculoskeletal pain and tenderness in the absence ofdefined disease can be better addressed through the

pathophysiological perspective of secondary hyperalgesia.

We thank Dr G D Champion, Dr R 0 Day, and Dr A Gamsa forcomments.

References

1 Anon. Fibromyalgia: the Copenhagen declaration. Lancet 1992;340: 663-64.

2 Bennett RM. Confounding features of the classification offibromyalgia. J Rheumatol 1989; 16 (suppl 19): 58-61.

3 Merskey H. Physical and psychological considerations in theclassification of fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol 1989; 16 (suppl 19):72-79.

4 Boissevan MD, McCain GA. Towards an integratedunderstanding of fibromyalgia syndrome I: medical andpathophysiological aspects. Pain 1991; 45: 227-38.

5 Boissevan MD, McCain GA. Towards an integratedunderstanding of fibromyalgia syndrome II: psychological aspects.Pain 1991; 45: 239-48.

6 Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, et al. The American College ofRheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia.Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33: 160-73.

7 Smythe HA, Moldofsky H. Two contributions to understanding ofthe "fibrositis" syndrome. Bull Rheum Dis 1977; 28: 928-31.

8 Yunus MB, Masi AT, Calabro JJ, Miller KA, Feigenbaum SL.Primary fibromyalgia (fibrositis): clinical study of 50 patients withmatched normal controls. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1981; 11: 151-71.

9 International Association for the Study of Pain. Pain terms: a listwith definitions and notes on usage. Pain 1979; 6: 249-52.

10 Harris G, Rollman GB. The validity of experimental painmeasures. Pain 1983; 17: 369-76.

11 Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, Foley KM, Gracely RH,Reading AE. Pain measurement: an overview. Pain 1985; 22: 1-31.

12 Smythe HA, Gladman A, Dagenais P, Kraishi M, Blake R.Relation between fibrositic and control site tenderness; effects ofdolorimeter scale length and footplate size. J Rheumatol 1992; 19:284-89.

13 Campbell SM, Clark S, Tindall EA, Forehand ME, Bennett RM.Clinical characteristics of fibrositis I: a "blinded" controlled studyof symptoms and tender points. Arthritis Rheum 1983; 26: 817-24.

14 Scudds RA, Rollman GB, Harth M, McCain GA. Pain perceptionand personality measures as discriminators in the classification offibrositis. J Rheumatol 1987; 14: 563-69.

15 Tunks E, Crook J, Norma G, Kalaher S. Tender points infibromyalgia. Pain 1988; 34: 11-19.

16 Simms RW, Goldenburg DL. Symptoms mimicking neurologicdisorders in fibromyalgia syndrome. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1271-73.

17 Quimby LG, Block SR, Gratwick GM. Fibromyalgia: generalizedpain intolerance and manifold symptom reporting. J Rheumatol1988; 15: 1264-70.

18 Heft MW, Parker SR. An experimental basis for revising thegraphic rating scale for pain. Pain 1984; 19: 153-61.

19 Ransohoff DR, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias inevaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:926-30.

909

20 Medawar P. Induction and intuition in scientific thought. London:Methuen, 1969.

21 Lewis T. Experiments relating to cutaneous hyperalgesia and itsspread through somatic nerves. Clin Sci 1936; 2: 373-421.

22 Hardy TD, Wolff HG, Goodell H. Experimental evidence on thenature of secondary hyperalgesia. J Clin Invest 1950; 29: 115-40.

23 Arroyo JF, Cohen ML. Abnormal responses to electrocutaneousstimulation in fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol (in press).

24 Coderre TJ, Melzack R. Cutaneous hyperalgesia: contribution ofthe peripheral and central nervous systems to the increase in painsensitivity after injury. Brain Res 1987; 404: 95-106.

25 Treede R-D, Meyer RA, Raja SN, Campbell JN. Peripheral and

central mechanisms of cutaneous hyperalgesia. Progr Neurobiol1992; 38: 397-421.

26 Perry F, Helle PH, Levine JD. Differing correlations between painmeasures in syndromes with or without explicable organicpathology. Pain 1988; 34: 185-89.

27 Rollman GB. Measurement of pain in fibromyalgia in the clinicand laboratory. J Rheumatol 1989; 16 (suppl 19): 113-19.

28 Gracely RH, Lynch SA, Bennett GJ. Painful neuropathy: alteredcentral processing maintained dynamically by peripheral input.Pain 1992; 51: 175-94.

29 Koltzenburg M, Lundberg LER, Torebjörk HE. Dynamic andstatic components of mechanical hyperalgesia in human hairy skin.Pain 1992; 51: 207-19.

Non-compliance—or how many aunts has Matilda?

SummaryThe compliance of patients with medication prescribed forthem is a challenge. It seems that one-third of patients complyadequately, one-third more-or-less, and one-third are non-compliant, so that compliance rates hover around 50%. Thiscan be improved upon, but not by treating failure to comply as adeplorably aberrant behaviour. First we need to know moreabout compliance and non-compliance, and that means

standardising methods of study and measuring, byquestioning the patient, counting tablets, or looking at drugmetabolites or markers in faeces, blood or urine. Doctors’

prejudices and patients’ perceptions alike have to be takeninto account since strategies for improvement must includeboth educating the prescriber and counselling the patient.

Lancet 1993; 342: 909-13

Introduction

The seriousness of non-compliance is well recognised in theUSA, where it has been designated "America’s other drugproblem".1 It is equally important in the UK. In 1957The Lancet published an article that began with one ofHilaire Belloc’s Cautionary Tales:

Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,It made one Gasp and Stretch one’s Eyes;Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest YouthHad kept a Strict Regard for Truth,Attempted to Believe Matilda:The effort very nearly killed her.

The article then demonstrated that only 50% of

outpatients given drug treatment for tuberculosis hadpositive urine tests.2 Investigations into non-compliancemultiplied and by 1988 the Index Medicus had includedmore than 4000 articles on the subject, confirming that ofpatients on long-term medication about half take it in waysthat differ from what the doctor prescribed.3

Lifecare NHS Trust, Caterham, Surrey CR3 5YA, UK (E C Wright MD)

For the biblically minded, the story begins, as an

excellent book on compliance shows, in Genesis with Evetaking more "medicine" than she was prescribed in theGarden of Eden. For the historically minded, the storybegins with an aphorism of Hippocrates: "keep watch alsoon the faults of the patients, which often make them lieabout the taking of things prescribed".

Deflnitions of complianceCompliance with what? Medication taking, alterations indiet, advice on exercise or smoking, keeping appointments,and attendance for further investigations are some of theaspects that have been studied. The definition can becomeelaborated to the point of absurdity, as in an early papersstriving for an index of the potential threat of the disease as"the square root of the product of the susceptibility scorefor each respondent times the severity score for eachrespondent". Attempts to classify non-compliance maylikewise fog the issue. One classification suggested fivegroups-namely errors of omission, of purpose (takingmedication for the wrong reason), of dosage (more, less), oftiming or sequence, and of taking potentially interactivemedications not prescribed by the doctor. This is all

negative, yet can be considered positively, as in anotherearly paper7on "patient acceptance of recommended healthbehaviors".

Studying complianceIt is because compliance involves such a complex set ofbehaviours that many doctors ignore it completely.Research workers who have taken up the challenge do notget full marks either. In 1979 Sackett and Snow reviewed537 investigations and found no more than 40 that satisfiedtheir criteria: design, sample selection and specification,description of illness, description of therapeuticrequirements, definitions of compliance, and measures forassessing non-compliance. The anticipated length of thetreatment and duration of follow-up must also be spelledout.