A critical appraisal of "chronic Lyme disease".

The optimal management of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is unclear and comprehensive evidence-based guidelines have not been reported. To provide up-to-date evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of FMS. DATA SOURCES, SELECTION, AND EXTRACTION: A search of all human trials (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials) of FMS was made using Cochrane Collaboration Reviews (1993-2004), MEDLINE (1966-2004), CINAHL (1982-2004), EMBASE (1988-2004), PubMed (1966-2004), Healthstar (1975-2000), Current Contents (2000-2004), Web of Science (1980-2004), PsychInfo (1887-2004), and Science Citation Indexes (1996-2004). The literature review was performed by an interdisciplinary panel, composed of 13 experts in various pain management disciplines, selected by the American Pain Society (APS), and supplemented by selected literature reviews by APS staff members and the Utah Drug Information Service. A total of 505 articles were reviewed. There are major limitations to the FMS literature, with many treatment trials compromised by short duration and lack of masking. There are no medical therapies that have been specifically approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for management of FMS. Nonetheless, current evidence suggests efficacy of low-dose tricyclic antidepressants, cardiovascular exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, and patient education. A number of other commonly used FMS therapies, such as trigger point injections, have not been adequately evaluated. Despite the chronicity and complexity of FMS, there are pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions available that have clinical benefit. Based on current evidence, a stepwise program emphasizing education, certain medications, exercise, cognitive therapy, or all 4 should be recommended.

This study aimed to describe the self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population using 3 multi-attribute preference-based measures: the EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2), and Mark 3 (HUI3). We surveyed the general adult U.S. population using a probability sample with oversampling of Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks. Respondents to this home-visit survey self-completed the EQ-5D and HUI2/3 questionnaires. Overall health index scores of the target population and selected subgroups were estimated and construct validity of these measures was assessed by testing a priori hypotheses. Completed questionnaires were collected from 4048 respondents (response rate: 59.4%). The majority of the respondents were women (52.0%); the mean age of the sample was 45 years, with 14.8% being 65 or older. Index scores (standard errors) for the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 were 0.87 (0.01), 0.86 (0.01), and 0.81 (0.01), respectively. Generally, younger, male and Hispanic or non-Hispanic black adults had higher (better) index scores than older, female and other racial/ethnic adults; index scores were higher with higher educational attainment and household income. The 3 overall preference indices were strongly correlated (Pearson's r: 0.67-0.87), but systematically different, with intraclass correlation coefficients between these indices ranging from 0.59 to 0.77. This study provides U.S. population norms for self-reported health status on the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3. Although these measures appeared to be valid and demonstrated similarities, health status assessed by these measures is not exactly the same.