Fibromyalgia & musculoskeletal pain
Comparing three fibromyalgia screening tools: diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility
Authors' conclusion
In patients with chronic multisite musculoskeletal pain, SIFIS exhibits superior diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility compared with FiRST and NFF.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive female patients with chronic multisite pain; Fibromyalgia (FM) by 2016 ACR criteria vs non-FM controls incl. common non-inflammatory musculoskeletal pain conditions106 (51.7%) with FM
- Participants
- 205 patients
- Comparison
- SIFIS vs Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) vs NFF for FM screening against 2016 ACR criteria
- Outcome
- Discriminative ability for FM (AUC-ROC) vs 2016 ACR criteria
Methodological detailscross-sectional, consecutive female patients, AUC-ROC analysis, decision curve analysis
- Cross-sectional
- Consecutive female patients
- AUC-ROC analysis
- Decision curve analysis
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic performance for FM
| Strategy | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIFIS | 0.941 | 82.1% | 91.8% | 86.8% |
| FiRST | 0.827 | 75.5% | 69.4% | 77.0% |
| NFF | 0.829 | 80.2% | 69.4% | 75.0% |
AUC
SIFIS0.941
FiRST0.827
NFF0.829
Sensitivity
SIFIS82.1%
FiRST75.5%
NFF80.2%
Specificity
SIFIS91.8%
FiRST69.4%
NFF69.4%
Accuracy
SIFIS86.8%
FiRST77.0%
NFF75.0%
- SIFIS vs FiRST: P < 0.001
- SIFIS vs NFF: P < 0.001
Further findings
Net clinical benefit (Decision Curve Analysis (DCA))
- SIFIS provided the highest net clinical benefit across a broad range of thresholds
Original publication
Comparing three fibromyalgia screening tools: diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. Clin Exp Rheumatol. Published 8 April 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →