Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 503

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review of the Evidence for Overlap among Unexplained Clinical Conditions

Aaron, Leslie A., Buchwald, Dedra·2001·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Unexplained clinical conditions share features, including symptoms (fatigue, pain), disability out of proportion to physical examination findings, inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities, and an association with "stress" and psychosocial factors. This literature review examines the nature and extent of the overlap among these unexplained clinical conditions and the limitations of previous research. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles were identified by a search of the MEDLINE database from 1966 to January 2001 by using individual syndromes and their hallmark symptoms as search terms. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that assessed patients with at least one unexplained clinical condition and that included information on symptoms, overlap with other unexplained clinical conditions, or physiologic markers. Conditions examined were the chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, the irritable bowel syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, temporomandibular disorder, tension headache, interstitial cystitis, and the postconcussion syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on authorship, patient and control groups, eligibility criteria, case definitions, study methods, and major findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Many similarities were apparent in case definition and symptoms, and the proportion of patients with one unexplained clinical condition meeting criteria for a second unexplained condition was striking. Tender points on physical examination and decreased pain threshold and tolerance were the most frequent and consistent objective findings. A major shortcoming of all proposed explanatory models is their inability to account for the occurrence of unexplained clinical conditions in many affected patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overlap between unexplained clinical conditions is substantial. Most studies are limited by methodologic problems, such as case definition and the selection and recruitment of case-patients and controls.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-134-9_part_2-200105011-00011

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 503

Metadata

Authors
Aaron, L. A., & Buchwald, D.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2001-05-01
Volume
134
Issue
9_Part_2
Pages
868-881
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W1992760119
Cited by
503
References
11
FWCI
14.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.