Toward an Empirical Case Definition of CFS

Jason, Leonard A.; Corradi, Karina; Torres-Harding, Susan

doi:10.1300/j079v34n02_04

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Friedberg, Dechene, McKenzie and Fontanetta (2000) found the following three-factor solution: cognitive problems, flu-like symptoms, and neurologic symptoms. Jason, Corradi and Torres-Harding (2007) found a six-factor solution, consisting of: neurocognitive, vascular, inflammation, muscle/joint, infectious, and sleep/post-exertional malaise symptoms. Arroll and Senior (2009) found the following five-factor solution: fibromyalgia syndrome-like, depression/anxiety, fatigue/post-exertional malaise, cognitive/neurological, and irritable bowel syndrome-like symptoms.…”

Section: Case Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Essential Features of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Jason¹,

Sunnquist²,

Brown³

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable debate surrounds the search for the defining features of patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Current case definitions were created through clinical consensus. Failure to operationalize these case definitions has led to considerable variability in the identification of patients. In addition, some case definitions (e.g., Fukuda et al., 1994) do not require cardinal symptoms of this illness, where as other case definitions do require core symptoms of this illness (Carruthers et al., 2003, 2011), and these latter case criteria appear to identify a more impaired group of patients. Criterion variance is most likely to occur when operationally explicit criteria do not exist for diagnostic categories (Spitzer, Endicott, & Robins, 1978), or when there are varying criteria for contrasting case definitions, which is an impediment to the research in this field. To deal with this problem, it is possible to differentiate those that meet more loosely defined criteria from those that are more narrowly and defined, thus differentiating CFS from ME. In order to progress the search for biological markers and effective treatments, essential features need to be operationalized and broadly used in order to increase the probability that individuals included in samples have the same underlying illness.

show abstract

Section: Case Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Essential Features of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Jason¹,

Sunnquist²,

Brown³

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A particular source of variability in epidemiological reports, for example, has been the inconsistent application of case definitions. [24] Reliance on self-reporting of symptoms alone, though useful for initial screening purposes, can lead to inflated prevalence estimates. Far greater consistency, however, is observed when studies involve clinical and laboratory investigations to more fully assess criteria.…”

Section: Research Applications a Multidisciplinary Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of clinical guidelines for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in research settings

Johnston

Brenu

Staines

et al. 2013

Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a particularly difficult illness to identify. To aid in classifying patients for research as well as clinical care, potential cases may be evaluated according to clinical guidelines. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of three sets of guidelines currently available: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Toolkit; the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME) Primer; and the International Consensus Primer. Methods: These guidelines were examined and compared with respect to required symptoms, laboratory and investigative protocols, and exclusionary and comorbid conditions. The comparisons were also intended to evaluate the guidelines in light of new research that advances the clinical understanding of CFS/ME and assists in identifying patients. Results: Guidelines vary significantly in the symptoms and comorbidities considered in light of the differing symptom requirements of three case definitions. There is also no specification on how symptoms should be measured, contributing to the significant heterogeneity found in CFS/ME. Conclusions: Further revision of clinical guidelines, preferably based on a definition that is well-informed by current empirical studies, is recommended to ensure that guidelines are applied with consistency and understanding in both research and clinical settings.

show abstract

“…[6] Other investigators have used statistical techniques to determine the critical domains experienced by patients with this illness. [7,8,9,10,11] From these studies, the domains of neurocognitive impairments and post-exertional malaise are more common than others including pain, autonomic, immune and neuroendocrine factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing and contrasting consensus versus empirical domains

Jason

Kot

Sunnquist

et al. 2015

Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since the publication of the CFS case definition [1], there have been a number of other criteria proposed including the Canadian Consensus Criteria [2] and the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. [3] Purpose The current study compared these domains that were developed through consensus methods to one obtained through more empirical approaches using factor analysis. Methods Using data mining, we compared and contrasted fundamental features of consensus-based criteria versus empirical latent factors. In general, these approaches found the domain of Fatigue/Post-exertional malaise as best differentiating patients from controls. Results Findings indicated that the Fukuda et al. criteria had the worst sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions These outcomes might help both theorists and researchers better determine which fundamental domains to be used for the case definition.

show abstract

Toward an Empirical Case Definition of CFS

Cited by 28 publications

References 31 publications

Defining Essential Features of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Defining Essential Features of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

The role of clinical guidelines for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in research settings

Comparing and contrasting consensus versus empirical domains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About