ABSTRACT
Background: This umbrella review systematically assesses the variety and relative dominance of current aetiological views within the scientific literature for the three most investigated symptom-defined functional somatic syndromes (FSS) and their classificatory analogues within psychiatry and psychology. Method: An umbrella review of narrative and systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses based on a search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsychINFO) was conducted. Eligible reviews were published in English, focused on research of any kind of aetiological factors in adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), and somatic symptom disorder (SSD)/somatoform disorder (SFD). Results: We included 452 reviews (132 systematic reviews including meta-analyses, 133 systematic reviews, 197 narrative reviews), of which 132 (29%) focused on two or more of the investigated health conditions simultaneously. Across diagnoses, biological factors were addressed in 90% (k = 405), psychological in 33% (k = 150), social in 12% (k = 54), and healthcare factors in 5% (k = 23) of the reviews. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews (k = 255) was low (low/critically low: 41% [k = 104]; moderate: 49% [k = 126]; high quality: 10% [k = 25]). The high-quality systematic reviews suggest that deficient conditioned pain modulation, genetic factors, changes in the immune, endocrinological, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and nervous system, and psychosocial factors such as sexual abuse and pain catastrophizing increase the risk for FSS. Conclusion: Only very few systematic reviews have used comprehensive, biopsychosocial disease models to guide the selection of aetiological factors in FSS research. Future research should strive for higher scientific standards and broaden its perspective on these health conditions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Professional subgroups are common and may play a role in aiding professional maturity or impeding professional legitimization. The chiropractic profession in the United States has a long history of diverse intra-professional subgroups with varying ideologies and practice styles. To our knowledge, large-scale quantification of chiropractic professional subgroups in the United States has not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to quantify and describe the clinical practice beliefs and behaviors associated with United States chiropractic subgroups. METHODS: A 10% random sample of United States licensed chiropractors (n = 8975) was selected from all 50 state regulatory board lists and invited to participate in a survey. The survey consisted of a 7-item questionnaire; 6 items were associated with chiropractic ideological and practice characteristics and 1 item was related to the self-identified role of chiropractic in the healthcare system which was utilized as the dependent variable to identify chiropractic subgroups. Multinomial logistic regression with predictive margins was used to analyze which responses to the 6 ideology and practice characteristic items were predictive of chiropractic subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 3538 responses were collected (39.4% response rate). Respondents self-identified into three distinct subgroups based on the perceived role of the chiropractic profession in the greater healthcare system: 56.8% were spine/neuromusculoskeletal focused; 22.0% were primary care focused; and 21.2% were vertebral subluxation focused. Patterns of responses to the 6 ideologies and practice characteristic items were substantially different across the three professional subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents self-identified into one of three distinct intra-professional subgroups. These subgroups can be differentiated along themes related to clinical practice beliefs and behaviors.
