Talk:Amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome

Amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Disability

Amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

GA Quickfail (verifiability, maintenance). Fritzmann (message me) 20:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Unfortunately, there are some very glaring issues that disqualify it from becoming a Good Article at this time. According to the criteria, nominations cannot still have valid cleanup tags. Currently, three sections are marked with the "empty" tag, indicating there is missing information. Additionally, the article fails Criterion 2 (Verifiability) as the bulk of the statements in the article are unreferenced and therefore unverifiable.

Your creation of this article is welcome and positive, but I am going to have to quickfail it for the above reasons. If you would like additional advice on how to continue to work on and improve the article, please drop a message on my talk page. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 20:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using words of association rather than causation

Since AMPS does not have a specific pathophysiology that can be measured and verified, it's better to use words of association rather than causation.

The section discussing EDS, myelitis arthritis and other rheumatological diseases is confusing and misleading because each of those has a pathophysiology that can be measured and verified.

It would be more appropriate to state that people with lax ligaments (EDS), rheumatoid arthritis, or another discrete pathophysiology who have more intense pain than expected can be considered to overlap with AMPS. Unecomeditor1 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology and Diagnosis

It’s more accurate to say there is no measurable pathophysiology and the diagnosis is conceptual. A section of the AMPS page mentions that the condition is “often not diagnosed when it first presents.” Since the diagnosis is conceptual rather than experimental, it cannot be framed as a delay in diagnosis. The main issue is whether this concept of AMPS and its use with individual patients is good for their health. Unecomeditor1 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional suggestions regarding word choice

Since AMPS and other concepts are debated and will evolve, it's helpful to use descriptive terms like "notable pain intensity without identifiable pathophysiology."

Specifically, this could be implemented at the beginning of the third paragraph by editing to, "Treatment for notable pain intensity without identifiable pathophysiology can include psychotherapy to alleviate psychological stress." Unecomeditor1 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Therapy vs Physical Therapists

It's important to make it clear that physical therapy is a profession and be specific about the types of treatment physical therapists provide, primarily coaching on exercises. Additionally, "pain management" is not a treatment. Unecomeditor1 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between physical and mental symptoms

The direction of the relationship between physical and mental symptoms is essentially unknowable. And the relationship is accepted to be bidirectional, which is common sense.

Suggesting that the mental symptoms are due, or must be due, to the physical symptoms seems to reflect, and may reinforce the social stigma associated with thoughts and emotions. It's as if you're saying that one would not feel worry or despair if they did not have the physical pain, which is a false and harmful concept. Unecomeditor1 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing sections on "Chronic Pain," "Visual Changes," "Complications" and "Causes"

Currently the "Chronic Pain" section doesn't add anything to the prior paragraph. It's all redundant.

The following section on "Visual Changes" is out of pain here.

"Complications" are the result of intervention, making this section also out of place. Additionally, The relationship between mental and physical health is bidirectional. This needs to be handled accurately.

Regarding "Causes," since we do not know the pathophysiology (idiopathic), we cannot discuss etiology (cause). We can only address associations. Unecomeditor1 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Mechanism" to "Rationale"

The text does not present experimental evidence of pathophysiology. This is rationale. Unecomeditor1 (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]