Cited by 428Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment

Subgrouping of fibromyalgia patients on the basis of pressure‐pain thresholds and psychological factors

Giesecke, Thorsten, Williams, David A., Harris, Richard E., Cupps, Thomas R., Tian, Xiaoming, Tian, Thomas X., Gracely, Richard H., Clauw, Daniel J.·2003·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

Objective: Although the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for fibromyalgia are used to identify individuals with both widespread pain and tenderness, individuals who meet these criteria are not a homogeneous group. Patients differ in their accompanying clinical symptoms, as well as in the relative contributions of biologic, psychological, and cognitive factors to their symptom expression. Therefore, it seems useful to identify subsets of fibromyalgia patients on the basis of which of these factors are present. Previous attempts at identifying subsets have been based solely on psychological and cognitive features. In this study, we attempt to identify patient subsets by incorporating these features as well as the degree of hyperalgesia/tenderness, which is a key neurobiologic feature of this illness. Methods: Ninety‐seven individuals meeting the ACR criteria for fibromyalgia finished the same battery of self‐report and evoked‐pain testing. Analyzed variables were obtained from several domains, consisting of 1) mood (evaluated by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [for depression] and the State‐Trait Personality Inventory [for symptoms of trait‐related anxiety]), 2) cognition (by the catastrophizing and control of pain subscales of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire), and 3) hyperalgesia/tenderness (by dolorimetry and random pressure‐pain applied at suprathreshold values). Cluster analytic procedures were used to distinguish subgroups of fibromyalgia patients based on these domains. Results: Three clusters best fit the data. Multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that each variable was differentiated by the cluster solution (Wilks' λ [degrees of freedom 6,89] = 0.123, P < 0.0001), with univariate ANOVAs also indicating significant differences (all P < 0.05). One subgroup of patients (n = 50) was characterized by moderate mood ratings, moderate levels of catastrophizing and perceived control over pain, and low levels of tenderness. A second subgroup (n = 31) displayed significantly elevated values on the mood assessments, the highest values on the catastrophizing subscale, the lowest values for perceived control over pain, and high levels of tenderness. The third group (n = 16) had normal mood ratings, very low levels of catastrophizing, and the highest level of perceived control over pain, but these subjects showed extreme tenderness on evoked‐pain testing. Conclusion: These data help support the clinical impression that there are distinct subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia. There appears to be a group of fibromyalgia patients who exhibit extreme tenderness but lack any associated psychological/cognitive factors, an intermediate group who display moderate tenderness and have normal mood, and a group in whom mood and cognitive factors may be significantly influencing the symptom report.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.11272

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giesecke, T., Williams, D. A., Harris, R. E., Cupps, T. R., Tian, X., Tian, T. X., Gracely, R. H., & Clauw, D. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-10
Volume
48
Issue
10
Pages
2916-2922
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W2086137478
Cited by
424
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 23
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Arthritis & Rheumatism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Army (DAMD 17-00-2-0018)
  • NIH (5-R01-AT 000004-02)
  • General Clinical Research Center Program of the National Center for Research Resources, NIH (5-M01-RR13297)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
patient subgroups, pressure pain threshold, tenderness, hyperalgesia, pain catastrophizing, pain coping, depression, anxiety, mood, evoked pain, clustering, ACR diagnostic criteria, widespread pain, psychological factors, cognitive factors, symptom heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Fibromyalgia, Humans, Hyperalgesia, Male, Middle Aged, Pressure, Pain Threshold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review