A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Journal of chronic diseases and management Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-05-21
Madison Sunnquist, Leonard A Jason, Pamela Nehrke, Ellen M Goudsmit
{"title":"A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.","authors":"Madison Sunnquist, Leonard A Jason, Pamela Nehrke, Ellen M Goudsmit","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many professionals have described the clinical presentation of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), but recent efforts have focused on the development of ME criteria that can be reliably applied. The current study compared the symptoms and functioning of individuals who met the newly-developed Institute of Medicine (IOM) clinical criteria to a revised version of the London criteria for ME. While 76% of a sample diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) met the IOM criteria, 44% met the revised London criteria. The revised London criteria identified patients with greater physical impairment. The results of this study indicate the need for a standard case definition with specific guidelines for operationalization. The application of case definitions has important implications for the number of individuals identified with ME, the pattern of symptoms experienced by these individuals, and the severity of their symptoms and functional limitations. Sample heterogeneity across research studies hinders researchers from replicating findings and impedes the search for biological markers and effective treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":92068,"journal":{"name":"Journal of chronic diseases and management","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5663312/pdf/nihms877784.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of chronic diseases and management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many professionals have described the clinical presentation of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), but recent efforts have focused on the development of ME criteria that can be reliably applied. The current study compared the symptoms and functioning of individuals who met the newly-developed Institute of Medicine (IOM) clinical criteria to a revised version of the London criteria for ME. While 76% of a sample diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) met the IOM criteria, 44% met the revised London criteria. The revised London criteria identified patients with greater physical impairment. The results of this study indicate the need for a standard case definition with specific guidelines for operationalization. The application of case definitions has important implications for the number of individuals identified with ME, the pattern of symptoms experienced by these individuals, and the severity of their symptoms and functional limitations. Sample heterogeneity across research studies hinders researchers from replicating findings and impedes the search for biological markers and effective treatments.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肌痛性脑脊髓炎和慢性疲劳综合征病例定义的比较。
许多专业人士都描述过肌痛性脑脊髓炎(ME)的临床表现,但最近的工作重点是制定能够可靠应用的ME标准。本研究比较了符合新制定的医学研究所(IOM)临床标准和伦敦标准修订版的 ME 患者的症状和功能。在被诊断为慢性疲劳综合症(CFS)的样本中,76%符合IOM标准,44%符合修订版伦敦标准。修订版伦敦标准识别出了身体受损程度更严重的患者。这项研究的结果表明,有必要制定一个标准的病例定义,并提供具体的操作指南。病例定义的应用对确定的 ME 患者人数、这些患者的症状模式及其症状和功能限制的严重程度具有重要影响。不同研究中样本的异质性阻碍了研究人员复制研究结果,也阻碍了对生物标记和有效治疗方法的探索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1