Dr. Yes
Shame on You
- Messages
- 868
I was tempted to post this in the "Joke of the Day" thread, but it isn't that funny. It is one of the stupidest abstracts I've read in a while...
Of course, with only this abstract, I have no idea how they defined "bodily distress syndrome". But however it was defined, it is worth noting that CFS and fibromyalgia were defined as 'somatoform' or 'functional syndromes'. And of course the basic idea of this.. this 'research paper' seems to have been to make up a disease name vague enough that anything they have already defined as medically unexplained would come under its umbrella. I guess "MUS" wasn't enough. How about... oh, never mind.
Yes, somebody ^ actually published this thing and wants the rights to it.J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26.
"One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders."
Fink P, Schrder A.
The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark. per.fink@aarhus.rm.dk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to clarify the classification of physical complaints not attributable to verifiable, conventionally defined diseases, a new diagnosis of bodily distress syndrome was introduced. The aim of this study was to test if patients diagnosed with one of six different functional somatic syndromes or a DSM-IV somatoform disorder characterized by physical symptoms were captured by the new diagnosis.
METHOD: A stratified sample of 978 consecutive patients from neurological (n=120) and medical (n=157) departments and from primary care (n=701) was examined applying post-hoc diagnoses based on the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry diagnostic instrument. Diagnoses were assigned only to clinically relevant cases, i.e., patients with impairing illness.
RESULTS: Bodily distress syndrome included all patients with fibromyalgia (n=58); chronic fatigue syndrome (n=54) and hyperventilation syndrome (n=49); 98% of those with irritable bowel syndrome (n=43); and at least 90% of patients with noncardiac chest pain (n=129), pain syndrome (n=130), or any somatoform disorder (n=178). The overall agreement of bodily distress syndrome with any of these diagnostic categories was 95% (95% CI 93.1-96.0; kappa 0.86, P<.0001). Symptom profiles of bodily distress syndrome organ subtypes were similar to those of the corresponding functional somatic syndromes with diagnostic agreement ranging from 90% to 95%.
CONCLUSION: Bodily distress syndrome seem to cover most of the relevant "somatoform" or "functional" syndromes presenting with physical symptoms, not explained by well-recognized medical illness, thereby offering a common ground for the understanding of functional somatic symptoms. This may help unifying research efforts across medical disciplines and facilitate delivery of evidence-based care.
Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Of course, with only this abstract, I have no idea how they defined "bodily distress syndrome". But however it was defined, it is worth noting that CFS and fibromyalgia were defined as 'somatoform' or 'functional syndromes'. And of course the basic idea of this.. this 'research paper' seems to have been to make up a disease name vague enough that anything they have already defined as medically unexplained would come under its umbrella. I guess "MUS" wasn't enough. How about... oh, never mind.