Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS): Faults and Implications Michiel Tack 2019

[John Mac]

Abstract: The classification of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) could have negative
consequences for patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS). By grouping related but distinct syndromes into one label, the MUS classification fails to inform clinicians about their patients’ health condition.

In research settings, the MUS classification makes patient samples more heterogeneous,
obstructing research into the underlying pathology of FSS. Long-term studies have shown that MUS are often appraised as medically explained symptoms at follow-up and vice versa, raising doubts about the reliability of this distinction.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1247/pdf

@Michiel Tack

 

[Sly Saint]

excellent job @Michiel Tack

 

[Andy]

Link to online version, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1247/htm

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Some inconsistencies, here:

The Keywords include "somatic syndrome disorder (SDD)" [sic].

The text refers to "somatic symptom disorder (SDD)" [sic].

But the new, single diagnostic category included in the DSM-5 (2013) is "Somatic symptom disorder" not "somatic syndrome disorder" and the acronym used by the APA for DSM-5 category, "Somatic symptom disorder" is "SSD" not "SDD".

Is there the potential for correcting this?

Thank you, Michiel, for including the Frances & Chapman ANZJP paper at citation [10].

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

Is there the potential for correcting this?

Yes, you're right.

Darn, very unfortunate these mistakes.

It is no longer possible to change to text. But I will let the journal know, perhaps they will issue a corrigendum or something.

Thanks for pointing this out @Dx Revision Watch

 

[Trish]

Just got around to reading this. I think you have done a very good job, @Michiel Tack. The whole MUS ideology needs to be properly challenged as you have done. Thank you.

 

[Sean]

Nice work, sir.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

The whole MUS ideology needs to be properly challenged as you have done.

Thanks for the compliment.

I feel really bad about the mistakes (using SDD instead of the correct SSD) as this takes away any respectability to this comment. It's a bit like a paper on CFS would spell it every time as CSF. Feels like a missed opportunity to make these arguments.

Don't know how this could have happened, as I've read quite a few papers on somatic symptom disorder and spelled the abbreviation correctly in my notes. Very unfortunate mistake.

 

[ukxmrv]

Thanks for the compliment.

I feel really bad about the mistakes (using SDD instead of the correct SSD) as this takes away any respectability to this comment. It's a bit like a paper on CFS would spell it every time as CSF. Feels like a missed opportunity to make these arguments.

Don't know how this could have happened, as I've read quite a few papers on somatic symptom disorder and spelled the abbreviation correctly in my notes. Very unfortunate mistake.

Please be easy on yourself. It's very good and the odd error really doesn't detract from it

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Thanks for the compliment.

I feel really bad about the mistakes (using SDD instead of the correct SSD) as this takes away any respectability to this comment. It's a bit like a paper on CFS would spell it every time as CSF. Feels like a missed opportunity to make these arguments.

Don't know how this could have happened, as I've read quite a few papers on somatic symptom disorder and spelled the abbreviation correctly in my notes. Very unfortunate mistake.

Michiel, perhaps the publishers might consider correcting just the Keywords, ie changing "somatic syndrome disorder" to "somatic symptom disorder", if they are not able to correct the body of the commentary?

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

Michiel, perhaps the publishers might consider correcting just the Keywords, ie changing "somatic syndrome disorder" to "somatic symptom disorder", if they are not able to correct the body of the commentary?

I've sent them an email indicating both mistakes. I don't know if keywords are any different in this regard as it appears in the publication itself. Will see how the publishers respond.

I'm hoping that a change in the text is still possible because it's a spelling mistake that would not change the interpretation of the paper and it has only been online for a day. In the pdf there is a check for updates button, so I'm hoping they could issue an updated version. But this is probably wishful thinking: normally after proofreading and publication, changes are no longer possible.

 

[obeat]

@Michiel Tack . Thanks for doing this. My cognitive function is abysmal.

 

[Sarah]

@Dx Revision Watch pointed out in her proposal, Rationale for Proposal for Deletion of the Entity: Bodily distress disorder that Creed, Rief and others have interchanged BDS and BDD in published work. In this case re SSD, it is just a persistent typo, so even if correction to the body of text isn't possible, your points are still clear and there's no detraction from the validity of the arguments. Thanks for your hard work on this, Michiel.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

Haven't received a response from the journal, but I see that both spelling mistakes have been corrected. That's probably because they do not change the interpretation of the text and the paper was online for only a day.

I'm very relieved. I would like to thank you again, @Dx Revision Watch for noting these mistakes so rapidly.