RESUMO O presente estudo teve como objetivo atualizar a revisão de literatura sobre a prevalência da fibromialgia (FM) publicada em 2006. Foi feito levantamento bibliográfico do período de 2005 a 2014 nas bases de dados Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs e SciELO e identificaram-se 3.274 registros. Cinco pesquisadores selecionaram os estudos, de acordo com os critérios de inclusão: estudos que obtiveram a prevalência da FM. Foram excluídos estudos da FM em doenças. Na triagem pelo título e resumo, foram excluídos 2.073 artigos irrelevantes. Foram avaliados quanto à elegibilidade os textos completos de 210 artigos, incluíram-se nesta revisão 39 estudos, descritos em 41 artigos. Os estudos selecionados foram agrupados em quatro categorias: a) prevalência da FM na população em geral; b) prevalência da FM em mulheres; c) prevalência da FM em áreas rurais e urbanas; d) prevalência da FM em populações especiais. A literatura aponta valores de prevalência da FM na população em geral entre 0,2 e 6,6%, em mulheres entre 2,4 e 6,8%, nas áreas urbanas entre 0,7 e 11,4%, nas rurais entre 0,1 e 5,2% e em populações especiais entre 0,6 e 15%. Esta atualização de revisão de literatura mostra um aumento expressivo de estudos de prevalência da FM ao redor do mundo. Os novos critérios do Colégio Americano de Reumatologia de 2010 foram ainda pouco usados e a metodologia Copcord (Programa Orientado para a Comunidade para Controle de Doenças Reumáticas) aumentou a qualidade dos estudos de prevalência de doenças reumáticas em geral.
ABSTRACT The present study aimed to update the literature review on the prevalence of fibromyalgia published in 2006. A bibliographical survey was carried out from 2005 to 2014 in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS and SciELO databases and 3274 records were identified. Five researchers selected the studies, following the inclusion criteria: studies that obtained the prevalence of fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia studies in associated diseases were excluded. When screening by title and abstract, 2073 irrelevant articles were excluded. The full texts of 210 articles were evaluated for eligibility and this review included 39 studies, described in 41 articles. The selected studies were grouped into four categories: (A) prevalence of fibromyalgia in the general population; (B) prevalence of fibromyalgia in women; (C) prevalence of fibromyalgia in rural and urban areas; (D) prevalence of fibromyalgia in special populations. The literature shows values of fibromyalgia prevalence in the general population between 0.2 and 6.6%, in women between 2.4 and 6.8%, in urban areas between 0.7 and 11.4%, in rural areas between 0.1 and 5.2%, and in special populations values between 0.6 and 15%. This literature review update shows a significant increase in fibromyalgia prevalence studies in the world. The new 2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria have not been widely used yet and the COPCORD (Community-oriented program for control of Rheumatic Diseases) methodology has increased the quality of studies on the prevalence of rheumatic diseases in general.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to estimate the accuracy of the postural assessment software (PAS/SAPO) for measurement of corporal angles and distances as well as the inter- and intra-rater reliabilities. INTRODUCTION: Postural assessment software was developed as a subsidiary tool for postural assessment. It is easy to use and available in the public domain. Nonetheless, validation studies are lacking. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 88 pictures from 22 subjects, and each subject was assessed twice (1 week interval) by 5 blinded raters. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. To estimate the accuracy of the software, an inanimate object was marked with hallmarks using pre-established parameters. Pictures of the object were rated, and values were checked against the known parameters. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was excellent for 41% of the variables and very good for 35%. Ten percent of the variables had acceptable reliability, and 14% were defined as non-acceptable. For intra-rater reliability, 44.8% of the measurements were considered to be excellent, 23.5% were very good, 12.4% were acceptable and 19.3% were considered non-acceptable. Angular measurements had a mean error analisys of 0.11°, and the mean error analisys for distance was 1.8 mm. DISCUSSION: Unacceptable intraclass correlation coefficient values typically used the vertical line as a reference, and this may have increased the inaccuracy of the estimates. Increased accuracies were obtained by younger raters with more sophisticated computer skills, suggesting that past experience influenced results. CONCLUSION: The postural assessment software was accurate for measuring corporal angles and distances and should be considered as a reliable tool for postural assessment.