SynthesisSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026
[Fibromyalgia syndrome-Is the designation as a disorder of women a misinterpretation?]
Synthesis in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a chronic pain condition accompanied by further characteristic key symptoms, such as sleep disturbance and fatigue. According to the literature it is often reported to be more frequent in women but the true sex-specific prevalence remains uncertain and potential underlying mechanisms are unknown.
objectiveTo determine the prevalence of FMS in women and men and assess whether the clinical phenotype differs; if so, to consider possible contributing factors. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a literature search in PubMed from 1 February 1990 to 30 September 2025. Eligibility for inclusion in our systematic review was assessed by applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria during screening of titles and abstracts.
resultsThe search yielded 532 articles, of which 59 were included in the systematic review and among these were 5 animal experimental studies. Men with FMS were examined in 2/54 (3.7%) studies and direct sex comparisons were reported in 15/54 (27.7%). Under these conditions, the reported prevalence of FMS averaged 2.4-6.8% in women and 0.2-2.4% in men. The clinical phenotype was assessed across sexes in 7/54 (13%) studies; additionally, 2/54 (3.7%) cross-sectional studies included only women and 2/54 (3.7%) prospective cross-sectional studies included only men.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests a higher FMS prevalence in women; however, most studies predominantly examined women, direct comparisons are scarce and no studies have investigated pathophysiological sex differences. Future research should address these knowledge gaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455336What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.