Tag: Fukuda vs Canadian Consensus Criteria

Do diagnostic criteria for ME matter to patient experience with services and interventions? Key results from an online RDS survey targeting fatigue patients in Norway

Abstract:

Public health and welfare systems request documentation on approaches to diagnose, treat, and manage myalgic encephalomyelitis and assess disability-benefit conditions. Our objective is to document ME patients’ experiences with services/interventions and assess differences between those meeting different diagnostic criteria, importantly the impact of post-exertional malaise.

We surveyed 660 fatigue patients in Norway using respondent-driven sampling and applied validated DePaul University algorithms to estimate Canadian and Fukuda criteria proxies. Patients on average perceived most interventions as having low-to-negative health effects. Responses differed significantly between sub-groups for some key interventions. The PEM score was strongly associated with the experience of most interventions. Better designed and targeted interventions are needed to prevent harm to the patient group.

The PEM score appears to be a strong determinant and adequate tool for assessing patient tolerance for certain interventions. There is no known treatment for ME, and “do-no-harm” should be a guiding principle in all practice.

Source: Kielland A, Liu J, Jason LA. Do diagnostic criteria for ME matter to patient experience with services and interventions? Key results from an online RDS survey targeting fatigue patients in Norway. J Health Psychol. 2023 Apr 28:13591053231169191. doi: 10.1177/13591053231169191. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37114822. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13591053231169191 (Full text)

Comparing and Contrasting Consensus versus Empirical Domains

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)

 

Are Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome different illnesses? A preliminary analysis

Abstract:

Considerable discussion has transpired regarding whether chronic fatigue syndrome is a distinct illness from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. A prior study contrasted the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis International Consensus Criteria with the Fukuda and colleagues’ chronic fatigue syndrome criteria and found that the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis International Consensus Criteria identified a subset of patients with greater functional impairment and physical, mental, and cognitive problems than the larger group who met Fukuda and colleagues’ criteria. The current study analyzed two discrete data sets and found that the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis International Consensus Criteria identified more impaired individuals with more severe symptomatology.

© The Author(s) 2014.

 

Source: Jason LA, Sunnquist M, Brown A, Evans M, Newton JL. Are Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome different illnesses? A preliminary analysis. J Health Psychol. 2016 Jan;21(1):3-15. doi: 10.1177/1359105313520335. Epub 2014 Feb 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125561/ (Full article)

 

Contrasting Chronic Fatigue Syndrome versus Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Much debate is transpiring regarding whether chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) are different illnesses. Several prior studies that compared the Fukuda et al. CFS criteria to the Canadian ME/CFS criteria found that the Canadian criteria identified patients with more functional impairments and greater physical, mental, and cognitive problems than those who met Fukuda et al. criteria.[3,4] These samples were located in the Chicago metropolitan area, so the results could not be generalized to other locations. In addition, past studies used a symptom questionnaire that was not specifically developed to tap the Canadian criteria.

PURPOSE: The present comparative study of CFS and ME/CFS criteria was intended to correct the methodological problems of prior studies.

METHODS: This article used data from three distinct samples to compare patients who met criteria for the ME/CFS Canadian clinical case definition [1] to those who met the Fukuda et al. CFS case definition.[2].

RESULTS: Findings indicated that fewer individuals met the Canadian criteria than the Fukuda et al. criteria. Those who met the Canadian criteria evidenced more severe symptoms and physical functioning impairment.

CONCLUSIONS: Future research should continue to compare existing case definitions and determine which criteria best select for this illness.

 

Source: Jason LA, Brown A, Evans M, Sunnquist M, Newton JL. Contrasting Chronic Fatigue Syndrome versus Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Fatigue. 2013 Jun 1;1(3):168-183. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728084/ (Full article)