Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22477946›Full record

ArticleMental health in family medicine2010

Explanatory models of medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative analysis of the literature.

J van Ravenzwaaij, Tc Olde Hartman, H van Ravesteijn, R Eveleigh, E van Rijswijk, Plbj Lucassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mental health in family medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Symptom management for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J van RavenzwaaijFamily Physician.
Tc Olde Hartman
H van Ravesteijn
R Eveleigh
E van Rijswijk
Plbj Lucassen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are common in primary health care. Both patients and doctors are burdened with the symptoms that negatively affect patients' quality of life. General practitioners (GPs) often face difficulties when giving patients legitimate and convincing explanations for their symptoms. This explanation is important for reassuring patients and for maintaining a good doctor-patient communication and relationship.Objective To provide an overview of explanatory models for MUS.Study design We performed a systematic search of reviews in PsycINFO and PubMed about explanatory models of MUS. We performed a qualitative analysis of the data according to the principles of constant comparative analysis to identify specific explanatory models.Results We distinguished nine specific explanatory models of MUS in the literature: somatosensory amplification, sensitisation, sensitivity, immune system sensitisation, endocrine dysregulation, signal filter model, illness behaviour model, autonomous nervous system dysfunction and abnormal proprioception. The nine different explanatory models focus on different domains, including somatic causes, perception, illness behaviour and predisposition. We also found one meta-model, which incorporates these four domains: the cognitive behavioural therapy model.Conclusion Although GPs often face difficulties when providing explanations to patients with MUS, there are multiple explanatory models in the scientific literature that may be of use in daily medical practice.

Identifiers

PMID22477946
PMCPMC3083258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.