Talk:Fibromyalgia

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fibromyalgia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fibromyalgia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fibromyalgia at the Reference desk.

Fibromyalgia was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
March 25, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Fibromyalgia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Need for scientific update

The entry is based on many old papers and is not up to date regarding recent academic findings. Is there a way to flag this? SigTif (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it flagged. Have you details of the recent academic findings? We cant do anything without them. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several papers revolving around (IgG) autoimmunity, this should be added if someone wants to do it. Till now, the article mentions none of it.

E.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34196305/, papers are usually Goebel et al or Karolinska.

There is even a Phase 2 study with an IgG reducer, cf. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05643794. 2003:EC:6F19:2200:A0EF:9214:1BBE:D39A (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Goebel paper is important. Do you know if it's been discussed in a review paper? I know it's replicated in people with pain in long covid, but is it also replicated in fibro? Wikipedia typically doesn't use primary sources per WP:medrs, and relies on reviews instead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the paper already mentioned, there is a second cohort already. They checked with Walton Center first, then with a totally different Karolinska cohort. There is also follow-up, eg. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37683961/ from Karolinska. In my mind there was another british group / cohort but not sure.

Regarding reviews I'm not aware, only for SFN I think I've read one. I know the Wikipedia guideline, but imo it doesn't really make sense in the context of "unexplained" or "psychosomatized" diseases. Reviews are often from a biased set of "experts", where there are different "groups". E.g. very low to no evidence (opinion) "reviews" of psychosomatic proponents (mostly with W.Häuser for finding it online) vs SFN proponent "reviews". Reviews are also not independent, eg psychosomatic proponents reviewing their own group's papers. Everything needs to be judged for quality, also reviews. For example, Cochrane has published a very flawed review on ME/CFS which they acknowledged.

Within that regard I also have a problem with WP:medrs advocate for "academic books", that is certainly not automatically better than a paper published by respected authors in a prestigious journal.

There are some "consensus" papers from groups and workshops, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38365860/ or https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38873615/.

In the end it's a balancing act, WP:medrs works better for well-defined diseases. 2003:EC:6F19:2200:4278:4F99:30C6:C78D (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. More recent papers are pointing to the existence of FM without paired tender points. The idea is over 30 years old and possibly very wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016048/ 50.46.9.58 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether female sex by itself is a risk factor for fibromyalgia, or just makes someone more likely to be abused (which in turn makes them 3 times more likely to get fibromyalgia). Calling sex a risk factor without controlled evidence looks suspect to me. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:6CEF:A62F:D2DB:454 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated image

In the "Signs and symptoms" section, there is an image of a woman with multiple symptoms. The image is from 2009, and as of 2022 is inaccurate. It includes symptoms such as dizziness, weight gain, skin complaints, urinary problems, twitches and dysmenorrhea that do not appear to be backed up by a reliable source. I suggest removing the image, unless someone would like to update it. SigTif (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been removed at some point between this comment and now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

SigTif, I am looking at the changes you're currently making with inserting images, and it doesn't look to be an improvement. The articles are not galleries, and the images (at time of this comment) do not add anything in themselves. That is, the sentence Irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia share similar pathogenic mechanisms has value, and should simply be in the body of the article; putting that as the caption of the image File:Irritable_bowel_syndrome.jpg does not add value: not only is the image so vague as to not really convey any information, this is in the fibromyalgia article, where it doesn't even seem relevant. Similarly, the replacement of the image in the infobox is not an improvement: the previous image was informative and conveyed information, the current one is effectively just clip-art: an image of a person with their hand on their neck (File:Fibromialgia.jpg) does not convey any information. Remember, articles do not have to have images, even in the infobox; this is the sort of image you would put in an infobox if they were required and you had absolutely nothing better to put there. I see you have put the {{in use}} template up, so I will not touch the article until that is removed, but I figured I would add this comment before you put in too many images that don't add anything. Kimen8 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Feel free to delete and unneeded images. SigTif (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted all of the image insertions. I also reverted the infobox image and caption change: putting a list of symptoms in the infobox image's caption is not useful, because the infobox already has a parameter listing symptoms. I also took out another image that's in this same vein, i.e., is not adding value in the article, that was already in the article before the edits I reverted. Kimen8 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:IMAGEDD are the justification for removing these images that are irrelevant or do not add value/information to the article. Kimen8 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Science Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alea m12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Smcc24.

— Assignment last updated by Smcc24 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]