Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen

Als Konsequenz der umfassenden Kritik an der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen und insbesondere der Somatisierungsstörung nach dem DSM-IV und der ICD-10 wurde diese Diagnosekategorie mit Erscheinen des DSM-5 grundlegend revidiert und die neue zentrale Diagnose Somatische Belastungsstörung eingef...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
1. Verfasser: Klaus-Schiffer, Kristina
Beteiligte: Rief, Winfried (Prof. Dr.) (BetreuerIn (Doktorarbeit))
Format: Dissertation
Sprache:Deutsch
Veröffentlicht: Philipps-Universität Marburg 2015
Psychologie
Ausgabe:http://dx.doi.org/10.17192/z2015.0072
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:PDF-Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
publishDate 2015
era_facet 2015
institution Psychologie
title Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
spellingShingle Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
DSM-5
Psychologie
Somatische Belastungsstörung
Somatic Symptom Disorder
DSM-5
Somatoform disorders
Somatoforme Störungen
Klaus-Schiffer, Kristina
As a consequence of the widespread criticism leveled against the classification of somatoform disorders and especially the somatization disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10, a fundamentally revised diagnostic category was introduced by DSM-5 with the new main diagnosis Somatic Symptom Disorder. Substantial modifications concern the inclusion of somatic symptoms despite the existence of a medical cause and the inclusion of psychological symptoms that are required for making the diagnosis. In view of these changes, the dissertation aimed to empirically validate the diagnostic criteria of the Somatic Symptom Disorder and to study the clinical implications of the revision. Based on a sample of the German general population (N = 321), the modified somatic criterion A and the new psychological criterion B of the Somatic Symptom Disorder were evaluated using a longitudinal approach with a 1- and 4-year follow-up. Although the modification of the criterion A is confirmed by the present findings showing a comparable clinical relevance of medically explained and medically unexplained symptoms and due to the limited reliability of such a distinction, the inclusion of somatic symptoms with a medical cause is currently questionable given the state of research. Even though the inclusion of psychological diagnostic criteria is an essential change in general, the symptoms specified in criterion B were not the most valid in the context of somatoform disorders compared to other psychological symptoms with potential use for classification. Based on an ambulatory assessment approach (N = 28), the possibility of classifying functional syndromes as Somatic Symptom Disorder was investigated using the example of fibromyalgia syndrome. In principle, the classification of the fibromyalgia syndrome as a mental disorder might be considered because the psychological criterion B of the Somatic Symptom Disorder was frequently fulfilled. In form of a review article, the applicability of various diagnostic instruments developed for somatoform disorders was discussed for the assessment of the Somatic Symptom Disorder. None of the existing instruments using self-ratings or ratings by others turned out to be appropriate without specific adaption. In conclusion, the revisions of the Somatic Symptom Disorder in DSM-5 imply basic improvements compared to the often criticized somatization disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10. However, scepticism concerning the optimal definition of the classification criteria still remains. Further empirical investigations of the Somatic Symptom Disorder are important due to the fact that an enormous prevalence of the diagnosis in the health care system is expected. Not only science will benefit from a reliable and valid classification, but primarily also practice. There are many open questions regarding the continuity of the research field and the generalizability of the knowledge on somatoform disorders as well as the revision of the forthcoming ICD-11.
title_short Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
title_full Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
title_fullStr Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
title_full_unstemmed Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
title_sort Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen
topic DSM-5
Psychologie
Somatische Belastungsstörung
Somatic Symptom Disorder
DSM-5
Somatoform disorders
Somatoforme Störungen
oai_set_str_mv ddc:150
open_access
doc-type:doctoralThesis
xMetaDissPlus
dewey-raw 150
dewey-search 150
genre Psychology
genre_facet Psychology
topic_facet Psychologie
description Als Konsequenz der umfassenden Kritik an der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen und insbesondere der Somatisierungsstörung nach dem DSM-IV und der ICD-10 wurde diese Diagnosekategorie mit Erscheinen des DSM-5 grundlegend revidiert und die neue zentrale Diagnose Somatische Belastungsstörung eingeführt. Wesentliche Änderungen betreffen unter anderem den Einschluss somatischer Symptome trotz Vorliegen einer medizinischen Ursache und die Voraussetzung psychischer Symptome für die Diagnosestellung. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Neuerungen verfolgte die Dissertation sowohl das Ziel, die Diagnosekriterien der Somatischen Belastungsstörung empirisch zu validieren, als auch die sich aus der Revision ergebenden klinischen Implikationen zu untersuchen. Anhand einer Stichprobe der deutschen Allgemeinbevölkerung (N = 321) wurde das geänderte somatische Kriterium A sowie das neue psychologische Kriterium B der Somatischen Belastungsstörung im Rahmen einer Längsschnittstudie mit 1- und 4-Jahres-Follow-up evaluiert. Auch wenn die Veränderung des Kriteriums A durch die vorliegenden Befunde zur vergleichbaren klinischen Relevanz von medizinisch erklärten und medizinisch nicht ausreichend erklärten Symptomen und angesichts der geringen Reliabilität einer solchen Differenzierung unterstützt wird, erscheint der Einschluss somatischer Symptome mit medizinischer Ursache in Anbetracht der Forschungslage gegenwärtig noch zu hinterfragen. Obwohl die generelle Aufnahme psychologischer Diagnosekriterien eine wichtige Änderung darstellt, erwiesen sich die im Kriterium B bezeichneten Symptome nicht valider im Kontext somatoformer Störungen als andere potentiell zu Klassifikationszwecken geeignete psychische Symptome. Basierend auf einer ambulanten Assessment-Studie (N = 28) wurde die Möglichkeit der Klassifikation funktioneller Syndrome als Somatische Belastungsstörung am Beispiel des Fibromyalgiesyndroms überprüft. Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass das psychologische Kriterium B der Somatischen Belastungsstörung in vielen Fällen eines vorliegenden Fibromyalgiesyndroms als erfüllt angesehen werden konnte, ist die Klassifikation als psychische Störung generell in Erwägung zu ziehen. In Form eines Überblicksartikels wurde die Anwendbarkeit verschiedener für somatoforme Störungen entwickelter diagnostischer Verfahren für die Erfassung der Somatischen Belastungsstörung diskutiert, mit dem Ergebnis, dass sich keines der bislang existierenden Selbst- und Fremdbeurteilungsinstrumente ohne entsprechende Modifikation eignet. Schlussfolgernd lässt sich festhalten, dass die Neuerungen der Somatischen Belastungsstörung nach dem DSM-5 zwar eine grundsätzliche Verbesserung verglichen mit der vielfach kritisierten Somatisierungsstörung nach dem DSM-IV und der ICD-10 darzustellen scheinen, aber Zweifel an der optimalen Definition der Diagnosekriterien bestehen bleiben. Weitere empirische Überprüfungen der Somatischen Belastungsstörung sind notwendig, da von einer beachtlichen Prävalenz der Diagnose im Gesundheitssystem auszugehen ist. Von einer reliablen und validen Klassifikation profitiert letztlich nicht nur die Wissenschaft, sondern in erster Linie auch die Praxis. Offene Fragen betreffen die Kontinuität des Forschungsfelds und Generalisierbarkeit des bereits erworbenen Wissens über somatoforme Störungen sowie die zu erwartende Revision der ICD-11.
author Klaus-Schiffer, Kristina
language German
license_str http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/adm/urhg.html
contents As a consequence of the widespread criticism leveled against the classification of somatoform disorders and especially the somatization disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10, a fundamentally revised diagnostic category was introduced by DSM-5 with the new main diagnosis Somatic Symptom Disorder. Substantial modifications concern the inclusion of somatic symptoms despite the existence of a medical cause and the inclusion of psychological symptoms that are required for making the diagnosis. In view of these changes, the dissertation aimed to empirically validate the diagnostic criteria of the Somatic Symptom Disorder and to study the clinical implications of the revision. Based on a sample of the German general population (N = 321), the modified somatic criterion A and the new psychological criterion B of the Somatic Symptom Disorder were evaluated using a longitudinal approach with a 1- and 4-year follow-up. Although the modification of the criterion A is confirmed by the present findings showing a comparable clinical relevance of medically explained and medically unexplained symptoms and due to the limited reliability of such a distinction, the inclusion of somatic symptoms with a medical cause is currently questionable given the state of research. Even though the inclusion of psychological diagnostic criteria is an essential change in general, the symptoms specified in criterion B were not the most valid in the context of somatoform disorders compared to other psychological symptoms with potential use for classification. Based on an ambulatory assessment approach (N = 28), the possibility of classifying functional syndromes as Somatic Symptom Disorder was investigated using the example of fibromyalgia syndrome. In principle, the classification of the fibromyalgia syndrome as a mental disorder might be considered because the psychological criterion B of the Somatic Symptom Disorder was frequently fulfilled. In form of a review article, the applicability of various diagnostic instruments developed for somatoform disorders was discussed for the assessment of the Somatic Symptom Disorder. None of the existing instruments using self-ratings or ratings by others turned out to be appropriate without specific adaption. In conclusion, the revisions of the Somatic Symptom Disorder in DSM-5 imply basic improvements compared to the often criticized somatization disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10. However, scepticism concerning the optimal definition of the classification criteria still remains. Further empirical investigations of the Somatic Symptom Disorder are important due to the fact that an enormous prevalence of the diagnosis in the health care system is expected. Not only science will benefit from a reliable and valid classification, but primarily also practice. There are many open questions regarding the continuity of the research field and the generalizability of the knowledge on somatoform disorders as well as the revision of the forthcoming ICD-11.
building Fachbereich Psychologie
title_alt The revision of the classification of somatoform disorders
publisher Philipps-Universität Marburg
format Dissertation
url http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2015/0072/pdf/dkks.pdf
doi_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.17192/z2015.0072
edition http://dx.doi.org/10.17192/z2015.0072
first_indexed 2015-09-10T00:00:00Z
last_indexed 2015-09-10T23:59:59Z
author2 Rief, Winfried (Prof. Dr.)
author2_role ths
ref_str_mv references
thumbnail http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2015/0072/cover.png
spelling diss/z2015/0072 2015 Revision der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen opus:5953 Als Konsequenz der umfassenden Kritik an der Klassifikation somatoformer Störungen und insbesondere der Somatisierungsstörung nach dem DSM-IV und der ICD-10 wurde diese Diagnosekategorie mit Erscheinen des DSM-5 grundlegend revidiert und die neue zentrale Diagnose Somatische Belastungsstörung eingeführt. Wesentliche Änderungen betreffen unter anderem den Einschluss somatischer Symptome trotz Vorliegen einer medizinischen Ursache und die Voraussetzung psychischer Symptome für die Diagnosestellung. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Neuerungen verfolgte die Dissertation sowohl das Ziel, die Diagnosekriterien der Somatischen Belastungsstörung empirisch zu validieren, als auch die sich aus der Revision ergebenden klinischen Implikationen zu untersuchen. Anhand einer Stichprobe der deutschen Allgemeinbevölkerung (N = 321) wurde das geänderte somatische Kriterium A sowie das neue psychologische Kriterium B der Somatischen Belastungsstörung im Rahmen einer Längsschnittstudie mit 1- und 4-Jahres-Follow-up evaluiert. Auch wenn die Veränderung des Kriteriums A durch die vorliegenden Befunde zur vergleichbaren klinischen Relevanz von medizinisch erklärten und medizinisch nicht ausreichend erklärten Symptomen und angesichts der geringen Reliabilität einer solchen Differenzierung unterstützt wird, erscheint der Einschluss somatischer Symptome mit medizinischer Ursache in Anbetracht der Forschungslage gegenwärtig noch zu hinterfragen. Obwohl die generelle Aufnahme psychologischer Diagnosekriterien eine wichtige Änderung darstellt, erwiesen sich die im Kriterium B bezeichneten Symptome nicht valider im Kontext somatoformer Störungen als andere potentiell zu Klassifikationszwecken geeignete psychische Symptome. Basierend auf einer ambulanten Assessment-Studie (N = 28) wurde die Möglichkeit der Klassifikation funktioneller Syndrome als Somatische Belastungsstörung am Beispiel des Fibromyalgiesyndroms überprüft. Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass das psychologische Kriterium B der Somatischen Belastungsstörung in vielen Fällen eines vorliegenden Fibromyalgiesyndroms als erfüllt angesehen werden konnte, ist die Klassifikation als psychische Störung generell in Erwägung zu ziehen. In Form eines Überblicksartikels wurde die Anwendbarkeit verschiedener für somatoforme Störungen entwickelter diagnostischer Verfahren für die Erfassung der Somatischen Belastungsstörung diskutiert, mit dem Ergebnis, dass sich keines der bislang existierenden Selbst- und Fremdbeurteilungsinstrumente ohne entsprechende Modifikation eignet. Schlussfolgernd lässt sich festhalten, dass die Neuerungen der Somatischen Belastungsstörung nach dem DSM-5 zwar eine grundsätzliche Verbesserung verglichen mit der vielfach kritisierten Somatisierungsstörung nach dem DSM-IV und der ICD-10 darzustellen scheinen, aber Zweifel an der optimalen Definition der Diagnosekriterien bestehen bleiben. Weitere empirische Überprüfungen der Somatischen Belastungsstörung sind notwendig, da von einer beachtlichen Prävalenz der Diagnose im Gesundheitssystem auszugehen ist. Von einer reliablen und validen Klassifikation profitiert letztlich nicht nur die Wissenschaft, sondern in erster Linie auch die Praxis. Offene Fragen betreffen die Kontinuität des Forschungsfelds und Generalisierbarkeit des bereits erworbenen Wissens über somatoforme Störungen sowie die zu erwartende Revision der ICD-11. As a consequence of the widespread criticism leveled against the classification of somatoform disorders and especially the somatization disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10, a fundamentally revised diagnostic category was introduced by DSM-5 with the new main diagnosis Somatic Symptom Disorder. Substantial modifications concern the inclusion of somatic symptoms despite the existence of a medical cause and the inclusion of psychological symptoms that are required for making the diagnosis. In view of these changes, the dissertation aimed to empirically validate the diagnostic criteria of the Somatic Symptom Disorder and to study the clinical implications of the revision. Based on a sample of the German general population (N = 321), the modified somatic criterion A and the new psychological criterion B of the Somatic Symptom Disorder were evaluated using a longitudinal approach with a 1- and 4-year follow-up. Although the modification of the criterion A is confirmed by the present findings showing a comparable clinical relevance of medically explained and medically unexplained symptoms and due to the limited reliability of such a distinction, the inclusion of somatic symptoms with a medical cause is currently questionable given the state of research. Even though the inclusion of psychological diagnostic criteria is an essential change in general, the symptoms specified in criterion B were not the most valid in the context of somatoform disorders compared to other psychological symptoms with potential use for classification. Based on an ambulatory assessment approach (N = 28), the possibility of classifying functional syndromes as Somatic Symptom Disorder was investigated using the example of fibromyalgia syndrome. In principle, the classification of the fibromyalgia syndrome as a mental disorder might be considered because the psychological criterion B of the Somatic Symptom Disorder was frequently fulfilled. In form of a review article, the applicability of various diagnostic instruments developed for somatoform disorders was discussed for the assessment of the Somatic Symptom Disorder. None of the existing instruments using self-ratings or ratings by others turned out to be appropriate without specific adaption. In conclusion, the revisions of the Somatic Symptom Disorder in DSM-5 imply basic improvements compared to the often criticized somatization disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10. However, scepticism concerning the optimal definition of the classification criteria still remains. Further empirical investigations of the Somatic Symptom Disorder are important due to the fact that an enormous prevalence of the diagnosis in the health care system is expected. Not only science will benefit from a reliable and valid classification, but primarily also practice. There are many open questions regarding the continuity of the research field and the generalizability of the knowledge on somatoform disorders as well as the revision of the forthcoming ICD-11. 2015-02-02 The revision of the classification of somatoform disorders http://dx.doi.org/10.17192/z2015.0072 urn:nbn:de:hebis:04-z2015-00720 2015-09-10 Cedraschi C, Girard E, Luthy C, Kossovsky M, Desmeules J, Allaz A-F. Primary attributions in women suffering fibromyalgia emphasize the perception of a disruptive onset for a long-lasting pain problem. J Psychosom Res 2013;74:265-269. 2013 Primary attributions in women suffering fibromyalgia emphasize the perception of a disruptive onset for a long-lasting pain problem Chen AT. Information seeking over the course of illness: the experience of people with fibromyalgia. Musculoskeletal Care 2012;10:212-220. 2012 Information seeking over the course of illness: the experience of people with fibromyalgia Hazlett RL, Haynes SN. Fibromyalgia: a time-series analysis of the stressor-physical symptom association. J Behav Med 1992;15:541-558. 1992 Fibromyalgia: a time-series analysis of the stressor-physical symptom association Offenbaecher M, Waltz M, Schoeps P. Validation of a German version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-G). J Rheumatol 2000;27:1984-1988. 2000 Validation of a German version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-G) Häuser W, Thieme K, Turk DC. Guidelines on the management of fibromyalgia syndrome -a systematic review. Eur J Pain 2010;14:5-10. 2010 Guidelines on the management of fibromyalgia syndrome -a systematic review Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Loewe B. The Patient Health Questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010;32:345-359. 2010 The Patient Health Questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review Fink P, Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res 2010;68:415-426. 2010 One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders Karsdorp PA, Vlaeyen JWS. Active avoidance but not activity pacing is associated with disability in fibromyalgia. Pain 2009;147:29-35. 2009 Active avoidance but not activity pacing is associated with disability in fibromyalgia Kroenke K. Somatoform disorders and recent diagnostic controversies. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2007;30:593-619. 2007 Somatoform disorders and recent diagnostic controversies Maas CJM, Hox JJ. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Eur J Res Method Behav Soc Sci 2005;1:86-92. 2005 Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling Aggarwal VR, McBeth J, Zakrzewska JM, Lunt M, Macfarlane GJ. The epidemiology of chronic syndromes that are frequently unexplained: do they have common associated factors? Int J Epidemiol 2006;35:468-476. 2006 The epidemiology of chronic syndromes that are frequently unexplained: do they have common associated factors? McBeth J, Macfarlane GJ, Hunt IM, Silman AJ. Risk factors for persistent chronic widespread pain: a community-based study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001;40:95-101. 2001 Risk factors for persistent chronic widespread pain: a community-based study Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med 2002;64:258-266. 2002 The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms Warren JW, Clauw DJ. Functional somatic syndromes: sensitivities and specificities of self-reports of physician diagnosis. Psychosom Med 2012;74:891-895. 2012 Functional somatic syndromes: sensitivities and specificities of self-reports of physician diagnosis Berger A, Sadosky A, Dukes E, Martin S, Edelsberg J, Oster G. Characteristics and patterns of healthcare utilization of patients with fibromyalgia in general practitioner settings in Germany. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:2489-2499. 2008 Characteristics and patterns of healthcare utilization of patients with fibromyalgia in general practitioner settings in Germany Sanchez RJ, Uribe C, Li H, Alvir J, Deminski M, Chandran A, Palacio A. Longitudinal evaluation of health care utilization and costs during the first three years after a new diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:663-671. 2011 Longitudinal evaluation of health care utilization and costs during the first three years after a new diagnosis of fibromyalgia Robbins JM, Kirmayer LJ, Kapusta MA. Illness worry and disability in fibromyalgia syndrome. Int J Psychiat Med 1990;20:49-63. 1990 Illness worry and disability in fibromyalgia syndrome Fahrenberg J, Myrtek M, Pawlik K, Perrez M. Ambulatory assessment -monitoring behavior in daily life settings. Eur J Psychol Assess 2007;23:206-213. 2007 Ambulatory assessment -monitoring behavior in daily life settings Ebner-Priemer UW, Trull TJ. Ambulatory assessment: an innovative and promising approach for clinical psychology. Eur Psychol 2009;14:109-119. 2009 Ambulatory assessment: an innovative and promising approach for clinical psychology Aguglia A, Salvi V, Maina G, Rossetto I, Aguglia E. Fibromyalgia syndrome and depressive symptoms: comorbidity and clinical correlates. J Affect Disorders 2011;128:262-266. 2011 Fibromyalgia syndrome and depressive symptoms: comorbidity and clinical correlates Brosschot JF, Aarsse HR. Restricted emotional processing and somatic attribution in fibromyalgia. Int J Psychiat Med 2001;31:127-146. 2001 Restricted emotional processing and somatic attribution in fibromyalgia Sánchez AI, Martínez MP, Miró E, Medina A. Predictors of the pain perception and self- efficacy for pain control in patients with fibromyalgia. Span J Psychol 2011;14:366- 373. 2011 Predictors of the pain perception and selfefficacy for pain control in patients with fibromyalgia American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (5th ed.; DSM-5). Arlingten, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013. 2013 American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders Häuser W, Burgmer M, Köllner V, Schaefert R, Eich W, Hausteiner-Wiehle C, Henningsen P. [Fibromyalgia syndrome as a psychosomatic disorder -diagnosis and therapy according to current evidence-based guidelines]. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2013;59:132-152. 2013 [Fibromyalgia syndrome as a psychosomatic disorder -diagnosis and therapy according to current evidence-based guidelines] Wessely S, Nimnuan C, Sharpe M. Functional somatic syndromes: one or many? Lancet 1999;354:936-939. 1999 Functional somatic syndromes: one or many? Muller A, Hartmann M, Eich W. [Health care utilization in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS)]. Schmerz 2000;14:77-83. 2000 Health care utilization in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS)] Seite | 111 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 18 Seite | 111 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 18 Seite | 112 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 19 Seite | 112 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 19 Seite | 113 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 20 Seite | 113 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 20 Seite | 114 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 21 Seite | 114 CLASSIFYING FIBROMYALGIA AS MENTAL DISORDER 21 Häuser W, Zimmer C, Felde E, Köllner V. [What are the key symptoms of fibromyalgia? Results of a survey of the German Fibromyalgia Association]. Schmerz 2008;22:176- 183. 2008 What are the key symptoms of fibromyalgia? Results of a survey of the German Fibromyalgia Association] Häuser W, Schild S, Kosseva M, Hayo S, von Wilmowski H, Alten R, Langhorst J, Hofmann W, Maus J, Glaesmer H. [Validation of the German version of the Regional Pain Scale for the diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome]. Schmerz 2010;24:226-235. 2010 Validation of the German version of the Regional Pain Scale for the diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome] Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, Goldenberg DL, Häuser W, Katz RS, Mease P, Russell AS, Russell IJ, Winfield JB. Fibromyalgia criteria and severity scales for clinical and epidemiological studies: a modification of the ACR Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria for Fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1113-1122. 2011 Fibromyalgia criteria and severity scales for clinical and epidemiological studies: a modification of the ACR Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria for Fibromyalgia Wolfe F, Braehler E, Hinz A, Haeuser W. Fibromyalgia prevalence, somatic symptom reporting, and the dimensionality of polysymptomatic distress: results from a survey of the general population. Arthrit Care Res 2013;65:777-785. 2013 Fibromyalgia prevalence, somatic symptom reporting, and the dimensionality of polysymptomatic distress: results from a survey of the general population Häuser W, Henningsen P. Fibromyalgia syndrome: a somatoform disorder? Eur J Pain 2014;18:1052-1059. 2014 Fibromyalgia syndrome: a somatoform disorder Henningsen P, Zipfel S, Herzog W. Management of functional somatic syndromes. Lancet 2007;369:946-955. 2007 Management of functional somatic syndromes Fink P, Rosendal M, Olesen F. Classification of somatization and functional somatic symptoms in primary care. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2005;39:772-781. 2005 Classification of somatization and functional somatic symptoms in primary care Van Wilgen CP, van Ittersum MW, Kaptein AA, van Wijhe M. Illness perceptions in patients with fibromyalgia and their relationship to quality of life and catastrophizing. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:3618-3626. 2008 Illness perceptions in patients with fibromyalgia and their relationship to quality of life and catastrophizing Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:606-613. 2001 The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure Hoffman DL, Dukes EM. The health status burden of people with fibromyalgia: a review of studies that assessed health status with the SF-36 or the SF-12. Int J Clin Pract 2008;62:115-126. 2008 The health status burden of people with fibromyalgia: a review of studies that assessed health status with the SF-36 or the SF-12 Browning M, Fletcher P, Sharpe M. Can neuroimaging help us to understand and classify somatoform disorders? A systematic and critical review. Psychosom Med 2011;73:173- 184. 2011 Can neuroimaging help us to understand and classify somatoform disorders? A systematic and critical review Häuser W, Jung E, Erbslöh-Möller B, Gesmann M, Kühn-Becker H, Petermann F, Langhorst J, Weiss T, Winkelmann A, Wolfe F. Validation of the Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire within a cross-sectional survey. PLoS One 2012;7:e37504. APPENDIX Dissertation K. Klaus-Schiffer · Marburg · 2014 2012 Validation of the Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire within a cross-sectional survey Sansone RA, Levengood JV, Sellbom M. Psychological aspects of fibromyalgia: research vs. clinician impressions. J Psychosom Res 2004;56:185-188. 2004 Psychological aspects of fibromyalgia: research vs. clinician impressions Epstein SA, Kay G, Clauw D, Heaton R, Klein D, Krupp L, Kuck J, Leslie V, Masur D, Wagner M, Waid R, Zisook S. Psychiatric disorders in patients with fibromyalgia. A multicenter investigation. Psychosomatics 1999;40:57-63. 1999 Psychiatric disorders in patients with fibromyalgia. A multicenter investigation Nicholl BI, Macfarlane GJ, Davies KA, Morriss R, Dickens C, McBeth J. Premorbid psychosocial factors are associated with poor health-related quality of life in subjects with new onset of chronic widespread pain -results from the EPIFUND study. Pain 2009;141:119-126. 2009 Premorbid psychosocial factors are associated with poor health-related quality of life in subjects with new onset of chronic widespread pain -results from the EPIFUND study Tuzer V, Bulut SD, Bastug B, Kayalar G, Goka E, Bestepe E. Causal attributions and alexithymia in female patients with fibromyalgia or chronic low back pain. Nord J Psychiat 2011;65:138-144. 2011 Causal attributions and alexithymia in female patients with fibromyalgia or chronic low back pain Knight T, Schaefer C, Chandran A, Zlateva G, Winkelmann A, Perrot S. Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2013;5:171-180. 2013 Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States Klaus-Schiffer, Kristina Klaus-Schiffer Kristina Philipps-Universität Marburg ths Prof. Dr. Rief Winfried Rief, Winfried (Prof. Dr.)
recordtype opus
id urn:nbn:de:hebis:04-z2015-0072
urn_str urn:nbn:de:hebis:04-z2015-00720
collection Monograph
uri_str http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2015/0072
callnumber-raw diss/z2015/0072
callnumber-search diss/z2015/0072
callnumber-sort diss/z2015/0072
callnumber-label diss z2015 0072
callnumber-first diss
callnumber-subject diss z2015
_version_ 1563293977284706304
score 9,613937