Fibromyalgia as a syndrome was first described in 1816 by Balfour1. Since then, it has been called fibrositis2, chronic rheumatism, myalgia and pressure point syndrome. During the last two centuries this syndrome was mostly considered to be « psychological » or « purely imaginary ». It was only in 1987, with the studies of Smythe and Moldorsky (1977) and of Campbell et al. (1983) that the American Medical Association began to consider fibromyalgia as a “real” disease. In an exhaustive research study conducted by sixteen Canadian and American rheumatologists comparing 293 cases of fibromyalgia with 265 cases of a control group, Wolfe and coll. (1990) published precise set of diagnostic criteria. Two years later, the World Health Organization3 officially accepted the Wolfe et al. (1990) criteria in the Declaration of Copenhagen. The Collège des Médecins du Québec officially recognized the disease in June 1996.

Although many believe fibromyalgia to be a new disease there were over 2000 scientific publications on this disease between 1816 and 1997.

Between 1998 and 2002 there were an additional 884 publications.

Although there have been numerous attempts to cure fibromyalgia, most until now, have been disappointing. According to Bennett (1989), the only medications that may provide some relief are amitriptylin and cyclobenzaprine 4. These drugs have the ability to reduce muscular tension but do not provide a cure.

These were followed by non-conventional (non-medical) approaches from which detailed studies were also published, such as : physical exercise programs 5, massage or manipulative treatments 6, group psychotherapy 7, treatment by intense exposure to light 8, a cognitive-behavioral approach 9 and a relaxation technique 10.

All of the above methods provided appreciable psychological benefits however they produced no significant improvement to the physical effects of fibromyalgia. These (non-medical) approaches to curing fibromyalgia have become somewhat popular and inspired Fitzcharles et Esdaile (1997) to study a group that received several different types of these treatments (osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc.) and another group with no treatment of any kind (called the control group). The results of the study revealed that following a 6 month-trial period, neither the level of pain nor the ability to function differed from one group to the other.

Dr Robert Bennett, director of a research group on fibromyalgia in Portland, Oregon, has estimated that there is no approach that, used alone, can produce more than a 40% improvement in the majority of people suffering from the disease. This is why most authors suggest « supplementary» or« multidimensional » treatment, given the polymorphic nature of the syndrome 11. The Collège des Médecins du Québec has adopted this last position. (Fibromyalgia,Collège des Médecins du Québec, June 1996, pages 1-12).

1 Starlanyl et Copeland, 1996
2 Gowers, 1904
3 Csillag, 1992
4Goldenberd et al, 1986, Carette et al, 1986, Shore et al, 1975
5Martin et al, 1996 ; Buckhardt et al, 1994; Martin et al, 1993
6 Poiro-Boisset et al 1996; Rubin et al, 1991
7 Bennet et al, 1996
8 Pear et al, 1996
9 Nielson et al, 1992
10 Nielson et al, 1992; Levitt et al, 1994
11Alarcon et Bradley, 1988; Bennett, 1989; Camerlain, 1995; Carette, 1992; Forseth et Gran,2002, Friedberg et Jason, 2001; Nielson et coll., 1991; Rossy et coll., 1999; et Sim et Adams, 1999

Copyright Psycho Physio International Inc. 2003-2006

Home page Background Fibro and Science Psycho and fibro Treatment
Results Professionals Testimonials Contact us