In other studies, agreement has been poor. In some studies, agreement has been excellent. The outcome of these studies has been mixed. This problem has been addressed in part by interrater reliability studies that assessed agreement among examiners on identifying various components of the TrP or on the agreement among multiple examiners that an MPS did or did not exist. Lack of agreement on the criteria for the identification of a TrP has been a stumbling block for acceptance of MPS as a valid clinical entity ever since the syndrome was proposed and championed by Janet Travell and David Simons. Fernández-de-las-Peñas and Dommerholt in this issue have provided us with such a consensus, that will be useful in guiding further studies. However, even this statement is contentious because there has been no consensus on how to identify the TrP or how to diagnose MPS. The diagnosis is currently made by identifying a myofascial trigger point (TrP) in a person whose pain is consistent with the pain of a TrP and whose pain is reproduced in part by activation of the TrP. There is as yet no laboratory test that allows a clinical diagnosis to be made. The diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is made by physical examination and history the physical examination is the palpation of muscle, and the history is that of the nature of the pain.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |