Depends on who you talk to.Some people believe that all the "somatic" diseases are all the exact same thing just different patients either have or complain about different symptoms. Other people do not.It isn't a clear cut they are all the same thing or not issue at this time in my opinion. Some of the same treatments seem to help with multiple disorders, many of them seem to originate with or are in some part problems in the nervous system, and many people have more than one somatic problem, but that doesn't necesarily mean they are all the exact same disorder.Most people with FMS do seem to have IBS as well, I'm not sure how prevalent the reverse is. I believe IBS is much more common than FMS.see abstracts belowK.[this one shows at least some portion of IBSers do NOT have FMS]AuthorsChang L. Mayer EA. Johnson T. FitzGerald LZ. Naliboff B.InstitutionUCLA/CURE Neuroenteric Disease Program, Departments of Medicine and Physiology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA. linchang###ucla.eduTitleDifferences in somatic perception in female patients with irritable bowel syndrome with and without fibromyalgia.SourcePain. 84(2-3):297-307, 2000 Feb.Local MessagesHSL has complete holdings.AbstractBACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and fibromyalgia (FM) are considered chronic syndromes of altered visceral and somatic perception, respectively. Because there is a significant overlap of IBS and FM, shared pathophysiological mechanisms have been suggested. Although visceral perception has been well studied in IBS, somatic perception has not. AIMS: To compare hypervigilance and altered sensory perception in response to somatic stimuli in patients with IBS, IBS+FM, and healthy controls. METHODS: Eleven IBS females (mean age 40), 11 IBS+FM females (mean age 46), and ten healthy female controls (mean age 39) rated pain perception in response to pressure stimuli administered to active somatic tender points, non-tender control points and the T-12 dermatome, delivered in a predictable ascending series, and delivered in an unpredictable randomized fashion (fixed stimulus). RESULTS: Although IBS patients had similar pain thresholds during the ascending series compared with controls, they were found to have somatic hypoalgesia with higher pain thresholds and lower pain frequency and severity during fixed stimulus series compared with IBS+FM patients and controls (P<0.05). Patients with IBS+FM were more bothered by the somatic stimuli and had somatic hyperalgesia with lower pain thresholds and higher pain frequency and severity. CONCLUSIONS: Both hypervigilance and somatic hypoalgesia contribute to the altered somatic perception in IBS patients. Co-morbidity with FM results in somatic hyperalgesia in IBS patients.[here is another not all IBSers have FMS]AuthorsSperber AD. Atzmon Y. Neumann L. Weisberg I. Shalit Y. Abu-Shakrah M. Fich A. Buskila D.InstitutionDepartment of Gastroenterology, Soroka Medical Center and Faculty of the Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.TitleFibromyalgia in the irritable bowel syndrome: studies of prevalence and clinical implications.SourceAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology. 94(12):3541-6, 1999 Dec.Local MessagesHSL has complete holdings; also available online.AbstractOBJECTIVE: The irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and the fibromyalgia syndrome (FS) coexist in many patients. We conducted complementary studies of the prevalence of FS in IBS patients and matched controls, and of IBS in FS patients and the implications of concomitant IBS and FS on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: A study of 79 IBS patients with 72 matched controls (IBS study), and a study of 100 FS patients (FS study). All participants underwent tests of tender point sites and threshold of tenderness and answered questionnaires including personal and medical history, GI symptoms, and indices of HRQOL. RESULTS: In the IBS study, 25 of the 79 IBS patients (31.6%) and 3 of the 72 controls (4.2%) had FS (p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were found among the study groups in terms of global well-being (p < 0.001), sleep disturbance (p < 0.001), physician visits (p = 0.003), pain (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), and global severity index (SCL-90-R) (p < 0.001), with patients with IBS and FS having the worst results. IBS patients had significantly more tender points than controls (p < 0.001). In the FS study, 32 of the 100 FS patients (32%) had IBS. Patients with both disorders had significantly worse scores for physical functioning (p = 0.030) and for all but one of a 16-item quality of life questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: FS and IBS coexist in many patients. Patients with both disorders have worse scores on HRQOL indices than patients with either disorder alone, or controls. Physicians treating these patients should be aware of the overlap, which can affect the presentation of symptoms, health care utilization, and treatment strategies.[this one suggests a common pathogenic mechanism for the two diseases]AuthorsVeale D. Kavanagh G. Fielding JF. Fitzgerald O.InstitutionDepartment of Rheumatology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.TitlePrimary fibromyalgia and the irritable bowel syndrome: different expressions of a common pathogenetic process.SourceBritish Journal of Rheumatology. 30(3):220-2, 1991 Jun.Local MessagesHSL has complete holdings.AbstractPrimary fibromyalgia (PFM) and the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are both common conditions which account for 30% or more of referrals to rheumatology and gastroenterology clinics. An association between symptoms in PFM and IBS has been suggested but the frequency with which they coexist has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of each condition in groups of patients with PFM and IBS compared to normal and disease control populations. We studied four patient groups, 20 patients in each group, with PFM, IBS, inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and also 20 normal controls. Using strict diagnostic criteria, each group was assessed by two investigators for symptoms and signs of PFM and IBS. Sigmoidoscopy was performed when indicated. Results indicate that 70% (14/20) of the PFM patients had IBS and 65% (13/20) of the IBS patients had PFM. This compared with the control groups where 12% (7/60) and 10% (6/60) had PFM and IBS respectively. In conclusion, these results indicate that PFM and IBS frequently coexist. A common pathogenetic mechanism for both conditions is therefore suggested.[these are the references for a number of letters over the controversy--any library should be able to get these..I'm not sure which article started this letter thing, I can't find it quick on Medline.] 11. Sabal N. Fireworks over fibromyalgia, CFS, and IBS. [letter; comment]. Postgraduate Medicine. 102(6):44, 1997 Dec. 12. Vree R. Fireworks over fibromyalgia, CFS, and IBS. [letter; comment]. Postgraduate Medicine. 102(6):44, 1997 Dec. 13. Pocinki AG. Fireworks over fibromyalgia, CFS, and IBS. [letter; comment]. Postgraduate Medicine. 102(6):43, 1997 Dec. 14. Chambers CR. Fireworks over fibromyalgia, CFS, and IBS. [letter; comment]. Postgraduate Medicine. 102(6):43, 1997 Dec.[here is they all respond to antidepressants]AuthorsGruber AJ. Hudson JI. Pope HG Jr.InstitutionBiological Psychiatry Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, USA.TitleThe management of treatment-resistant depression in disorders on the interface of psychiatry and medicine. Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome, atypical facial pain, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. [Review] [79 refs]SourcePsychiatric Clinics of North America. 19(2):351-69, 1996 Jun.Local MessagesHSL has complete holdings.AbstractWe have reviewed studies examining the efficacy of various psychotropic medications, primarily antidepressant agents, in the treatment of a group of disorders that appear to exhibit some phenomenologic and genetic relationship to major depression. These disorders all appear to benefit (albeit to varying degrees) from antidepressant medications of several different chemical families. This observation has important theoretical and clinical implications. From a theoretical perspective, these results invite the hypothesis that these various disorders may share some particular etiologic "step" in common with major depression-and that the various antidepressant classes benefit these various disorders and major depression via a common action at this hypothetical "step". Although there is an appealing parsimony to this hypothesis, several reservations must be considered. First, it must be recognized that the quality of the available studies varies widely. As noted in the text, these studies used numerous different designs, varying diagnostic criteria for the disorders under study, and diverse methods of rating outcome. Interpretation is further complicated by the fact that many studies included other concomitant medications or therapeutic interventions in addition to the psychotropic drugs administered. Also, the dose of antidepressant medications administered in many of these studies, especially those using TCAs, was often much less than that normally administered in the treatment of major depressive disorder itself. Finally, many of the studies did not systematically evaluate improvement in both the physical and psychological symptoms of a given disorder. For all of these reasons, any theoretic discussion of the results must be tentative. Nevertheless, the overall tally of results strongly favors the hypothesis that antidepressant agents, regardless of their chemical class, are generally useful in the treatment of these disorders. At a minimum, therefore, we can conclude that antidepressant treatment in these disorders deserves aggressive further investigation in studies with modern, rigorous designs. Second, even allowing that multiple antidepressant agents are effective in these various disorders, it still may be premature to conclude that these disorders are related to major depressive disorder. In particular, many of the studies found little correlation between improvement in psychological symptoms and physical symptoms of a given disorder. This observation would seem to argue against a relationship with major depressive disorder. The alternative hypothesis, however, namely, that these disorders do not share a common etiologic "step," seems even less attractive. It would be a remarkable coincidence if, say, fluoxetine possessed an antidepressant property, an independent antimigraine property, and a third, independent, antipremenstrual dysphoric disorder property. And it would be even more peculiar if various other antidepressant medications chemically unrelated to fluoxetine also, by chance alone, benefited all of these same disorders via still other independent mechanisms. Although we cannot, of course, rule out the possibility of multiple mechanisms and multiple causes, the experience of scientific research often has been that the simpler explanation of a phenomenon has proved to be correct. Therefore, the possibility of a link among these various antidepressant-responsive disorders deserves investigation. From a clinical perspective, too, these results are important. They suggest that trials of antidepressant medications should be strongly considered in patients with these disorders. Furthermore, other types of psychotropic medication appear to have a role in the treatment of individual disorders, as discussed in the corresponding sections.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED) [References: 79]------------------ kmottus###aol.com�When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall�Think of it, ALWAYS. �Mahatma GandhiMy story and what worked for me in greatly easing my IBS:
http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000015.html