Patients with fibromyalgia syndrome tend to report deficits in cognitive functions; however, there is no clear consensus on which cognitive domains are impaired. The aim of this study was to compare the differences in cognitive performance between a group of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome and a group of pain-free subjects controlling for the covariables anxiety, depression, and sleep quality. In total, 130 patients with fibromyalgia syndrome and 111 pain-free subjects with an average age of 54.96 years completed the evaluation protocol consisting of sociodemographic data, psychological data, and neurocognitive tests. All data were collected from May 2022 to May 2023. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) were conducted to assess intergroup differences in all neurocognitive tests. MANCOVA analyses showed that the group of patients with fibromyalgia showed a worse cognitive performance than the group of pain-free subjects after controlling for anxiety, depression, and sleep quality. This study found that fibromyalgia patients exhibited worse cognitive performance and executive function than pain-free subjects. Thus, cognitive performance seems to not be related with anxiety, depression, or sleep quality in our sample of women with FMS.

The aim of this study was to quantify the multivariate relationships between clinical, cognitive performance, executive functioning, and psychological outcomes in women with fibromyalgia (FMS) using network analyses. Demographic (age, height, weight), clinical (pain history, pain intensity, and related disability), neurocognitive (D2 Attention test, Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure for visual perception, “Digits D/R/I” tests of the WAIS-IV battery for working memory, the 5-Digit Test for mental inhibition, the Symbol Search for processing speed and the Zoo Test for planning/decision making) and psychological (depressive symptoms, anxiety levels, sleep quality, pain hypervigilance) variables were collected in 129 women with FMS and 111 healthy women. Network analyses were conducted separately for each group to quantify the adjusted correlations between the modeled variables and to assess their centrality indices (i.e., connectivity with other symptoms in the network and their importance in the network). The network identified 74 associations in FMS women and 46 associations in controls with small differences. The strongest correlations in both groups were found between different attention variables: d2_CON with d2_C, d2_O with d_2TR, and d2_CON with d2_TA. The most central variables were d2_TA, d2_C, and d2_CON (highest strength centrality in both groups) and anxiety levels and pain hypervigilance (highest harmonic centrality in FMS women). The strength centrality of the network was stable for women with FMS (CScor0.7: 0.68) but not for healthy women (CScor0.7: 0.28). This study found that attention variables are most relevant within a neurocognitive network and that psychological variables are most important for the treatment of women with FMS. The clinical implications of the current findings, such as the development of treatments targeting these variables, are discussed.

Background: Migraine diagnosis is mainly clinically based on symptomatology. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the ability of pain thresholds to differentiate between women with and without migraines and (2) to determine the ability of clinical, psychological and psychophysical variables to differentiate between women with episodic and chronic migraines. A diagnostic accuracy study was conducted. Methods: Pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs) at one trigeminal (temporalis muscle) and one extra-trigeminal (cervical spine) and two distant-pain free (second metacarpal and tibialis anterior muscle) areas, as well as dynamic pain thresholds (DPTs), were bilaterally assessed in 100 women with migraines, recruited from tertiary hospitals (50% episodic, 50% chronic), and 50 comparable women without headaches. Migraine pain features (headache diary), migraine-associated burden (HDI), anxiety and depressive levels (HADS) and state (STAI-S)–trait (STAI-T) anxiety were also evaluated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, with optimal cut-off points, as well as the sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative likelihood ratios (LR) for each variable, were calculated. The women with migraines showed lower PPTs and DPTs than those without migraines. Results: The women with chronic migraines showed lower PPTs in the temporalis muscle than the women with episodic migraines. No clinical, psychological or psychophysical variables exhibited acceptable ROC values (≥0.7) for differentiating between women with and without migraines or between women with episodic and chronic migraines. Conclusions: Although the women with migraines had widespread pressure-pain hyperalgesia, neither the clinical, psychological nor psychophysical (pain threshold) variable exhibited the proper diagnostic accuracy to distinguish between women with and without migraines or between women with episodic and chronic migraines. New studies should clarify the clinical relevance of the findings of the current study.

Objective: The aim of the current study was to determine the capability of neurocognitive variables and executive functions to differentiate women with and without fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Methods: A secondary diagnostic accuracy analysis was conducted. A battery of neurocognitive and executive function tests (the D2 Attention test, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure for visual perception, “Digits D/R/I” tests of the WAIS-IV battery for working memory, the 5-Digit test for mental inhibition, the Symbol Search for processing speed, and the Zoo Test for planning/decision-making) were collected in 129 women with FMS and 111 without FMS. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, optimal cut-off point, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) for each variable were calculated. Results: Between-group differences were identified in ROCF_Copy (p = 0.043), ROCF_Recall (p = 0.004), d2_TR (p = 0.019), d2_TA (p = 0.007), d2_TOT (p = 0.005), d2_CON (p = 0.004), d2_C (p = 0.042), Symbol Search (p = 0.008), Decoding _FDT (p = 0.001), Retrieving_FDT (p = 0.001), and Inhibiting_FDT (p = 0.024). The result showed that FDT-based outcomes (Retrieving_FDT: ROC 0.739, sensitivity 85.3%, specificity 48.6%; Decoding_FDT: ROC 0.724, sensitivity 50.4%, specificity 16.2%; Inhibiting_FDT: ROC 0.708, sensitivity 56.6%, specificity 22.5%) were the variables able to differentiate between women with and without FMS. Conclusions: Although women with FMS exhibited deficits in attention, long-term visual memory, processing speed, and mental inhibition when compared with women without FMS, only mental inhibition scores showed moderate diagnostic accuracy to discriminate between women with and without FMS. Future studies investigating these results in clinical settings are needed to identify the clinical relevance of these findings.

Background and Objectives: The heterogeneous clinical manifestations of fibromyalgia syndrome have led to the revision of diagnostic criteria in the last decade. The aim of this study was to determine the capability of clinical, psychological, and cognitive patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) to differentiate women with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) from women with localized or regional pain conditions. Materials and Methods: A diagnostic accuracy study was conducted. Clinical (pain intensity—NPRS; related disability—FIQ), psychological (anxiety/depressive levels—HADS-A/HADS-D), and cognitive (sleep quality—PSQI; pain hypervigilance—PVAQ-9) PROMs were collected in 129 women with FMS and 65 women with localized/regional chronic pain conditions. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, cut-off point, sensitivity/specificity values, and positive and negative likelihood (LR) ratios of each variable were calculated. Results: Women with FMS showed higher levels of pain, related disability, and anxiety/depressive levels, worse sleep quality, and higher levels of hypervigilance (all, p < 0.001) than women without FMS. All PROMs showed excellent discriminatory power and good sensitivity (pain intensity: ROC 0.987, sensitivity 91.5%; related disability: ROC 0.980, sensitivity 93.8%; HADS-A: ROC 0.901, sensitivity 81.4%; HADS-D: ROC 0.906, sensitivity 85.3%; PSQI: ROC 0.909, sensitivity 79.1%; PVAQ-9: ROC 0.798, sensitivity 80.6%). Specificity was extremely small for all variables (<18%) except for pain hypervigilance (specificity: 34%). Conclusions: Women with FMS exhibited worse clinical, psychological, and cognitive variables than women with localized/regional chronic pain. Although all PROMs had good discriminatory power, related disability and pain hypervigilance were those showing the best models. These PROMs could be combined with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) diagnostic criteria to better discriminate between women with and without FMS. Studies investigating the relevance of combining these PROMs with the ACR diagnostic criteria in clinical settings are needed.

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of executive functioning and cognitive performance on individual experimentally induced pain perception during distractor tasks in an asymptomatic pain-free population. A total of 59 healthy pain-free subjects (59.3% women, mean age: 46.5 ± 24.7 years) completed a battery test that assessed execution functions (cognitive flexibility, working memory, mental inhibition), attention level, and psychological aspects (anxiety/depressive levels—HADS, pain catastrophizing—PCS, pain anxiety symptoms—PASS 20, sleep quality—PSQI) before conducting two n-back distraction tasks. Pain was experimentally induced with a thermal stimulus that was able to induce moderate pain (70/100 points) and applied to the non-dominant forearm. The thermal stimulus was applied before and during both (one-back and two-back) distraction tasks. The analyses consisted of separated repeated-measures ANOVA that considered the functioning on each test (cognitive flexibility, working memory, mental inhibition, selective attention) and controlled for sociodemographic and psychological aspects by comparing the pain intensity at the baseline and during the one-back and two-back distractor tasks. All ANOVAs found a significant effect of the distraction task, which indicates that the perceived pain intensity scores were lower during the one-back and two-back tasks (p < 0.001) as compared with the baseline. No interaction effect between the distractor tasks and working memory (p = 0.546), mental inhibition (p = 0.16), cognitive flexibility (p = 0.069), or selective attention (p = 0.105) was identified. The current study found that a distraction task decreased the perceived intensity of experimentally induced pain in asymptomatic pain-free individuals and that this effect was not related to executive function or attention levels.