Abstract:
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.
Source: Jason LA, Kot B, Sunnquist M, Brown A, Reed J, Furst J, Newton JL, Strand EB, Vernon SD. Comparing and Contrasting Consensus versus Empirical Domains. Fatigue. 2014 Apr 1;3(2):63-74. Epub 2015 Aug 26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788637/ (Full article)