Assessing the Perceptions of Fibromyalgia Syndrome in United States Among Academic Physicians and Medical Students: Where are We and Where are We Headed?

Objectives: Fibromyalgia syndrome [FMS] is a common condition, often diagnosed in the primary care setting, causing diffuse pain with additional somatic symptoms. Many physicians have questioned the existence of FMS due to an unclear pathophysiological origin and its overlap with other somatic syndromes. We sought to assess the perceptions of FMS among United States medical students and internal medicine and family medicine trained physicians working in an academic hospital. Methods: Residents and attendings working in a local teaching hospital were given questionnaires during undergraduate medical education sessions and academic conferences in internal medicine and family medicine. Medical students received surveys during small group sessions and through student mailboxes. Results: Seventy-two internal and family medicine trained physicians and 211 medical students were surveyed. In assessing whether FMS was primarily physiological or psychological in origin, 66% of physicians compared to only 29% of medical students [p < 0.001] chose a psychological etiology. Among physicians, women [82%] and American medical graduates [77%] were more likely to endorse a psychological mechanism than their counterparts [53% p < 0.010, 50% p = 0.022, respectively]. Additionally, when physicians were asked whether they believed FMS was an "actual illness," 19% responded "no." Conclusions: Fibromyalgia syndrome continues to be a controversial illness in the United States, especially when compared with values attained from international studies. Although current academic physicians appear to be skeptical of FMS's existence or its potential physiological mechanisms, medical students are more likely to support a physiological mechanism

Hand searching versus pitfall trapping: how to assess biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in high altitude equatorial Andes?

International audienceThe use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators of environmental change depends on the reliability and the effectiveness of the sampling methods. Those that have been tested in the temperate zone and in tropical forests still await experimentation in tropical high-altitude environments. For the first time, pitfall trapping and hand searching have been compared in Ecuadorian páramo above 4000 m a.s.l., in terms of practical effectiveness. The study was performed on six volcanoes and was based on the comparison of 28 sampling sessions (pitfall trapping and hand searching) performed along two different elevational belts [lower superpáramo (LSP) and upper superpáramo (USP)]. Analyses of sampling sessions showed that detected species richness is slightly higher with hand searching than with pitfall trapping, regardless of the elevation. Additionally, hand searching is more time-effective than pitfall trapping. The performance of the sampling method slightly varies when species assemblage composition is analysed in relation to elevational belts. In the LSP, hand searching and pitfall trapping should be simultaneously used to obtain exhaustive inventories of carabid biodiversity, since different species are likely to be collected by each method. In the USP, hand searching and pitfall trapping efficiency is very similar, but hand searching allows to collect a slightly larger number of species. Lastly, the sample-based rarefaction curves showed that four temporal replicates are mandatory to obtain a robust dataset and an exhaustive inventory of the true species richness and species assemblages composition. Our findings suggest a combined use of hand searching and pitfall trapping in the LSP, while both methods can be used alone for surveying carabids in the USP. Furthermore, hand searching is recommended if the aim is to obtain an inventory of species diversity, whereas pitfall trapping seems more convenient for fine grain ecological and comparative studies