Review Article

Classification and Clinical Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia Syndrome: Recommendations of Recent Evidence-Based Interdisciplinary Guidelines

Table 2

Comparison of the methodology of the Canadian, German, and Israeli guidelines.

Canada GermanyIsrael

Needs assessmentStructured consultation with 139 healthcare professionals from relevant disciplinesStructured consultation within the guideline group (50 persons building 8 working groups)Structured consultation within the guideline group
DatabasesEMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, PUBMED, and Cochrane LibraryMedline, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, and Cochrane LibraryMedline, Cochrane Library
Dates of search strategyUntil July 2010Until December 2010Until April 2012
Sources of evidenceSystematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trialsSystematic reviews with meta-analyses of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, quality of life, and drop out for any reasons in randomised controlled trials conducted by guideline group; harms of therapies as reported in RCTs and in the literatureSystematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials
Sources of recommendationsSystematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, panel consensus, and approval by ≥80% of 35 members of the National Fibromyalgia Guidelines Advisory Panel (NFGAP)Systematic reviews with meta-analyses conducted by guideline group; structured consensus conference*Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and RCTs; panel consensus
Number of references in the guideline document33660830
Classification of evidence Oxford criteriaOxford criteriaOxford criteria
Classification of recommendationsOxford criteriaGerman national guidelinesRecommendations based on strength of evidence
External reviewOne international expert
Boards of both endorsing scientific societies
Boards of scientific societies involvedChairman of Israel Rheumatology Society
PublicationIn pressApril 13, 2012In press
Internet accesshttp://www.canadianpainsociety.ca/pdf/Fibromyalgia_Guidelines_2012.pdfhttp://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/041-004.htmlhttp://www.ima.org.il/Ima/FormStorage/Type7/clinical_68_fibrom.pdf

*Strong consensus: >95% of the participants consented; consensus: 75–95% of the participants consented; majority: 50–75% of the participants consented. A minority statement and an explanatory statement were possible.
RCT: randomized controlled trial.