Society Logo
ME/CFS Australia Ltd
Please click here to donate ME/CFS Australia (SA) Inc
 
 
Facebook
 
ME/CFS AUSTRALIA (SA) INC

Registered Charity 3104

Email:
sacfs@sacfs.asn.au

Mailing address:
PO Box 28,
Hindmarsh,
South Australia 5007

Office:
Suite 506,
North Terrace House,
19 North Terrace,
Hackney, SA, 5069


Phone:
1300 128 339

Office Hours:
Wednesdays, 11am-3pm

ME/CFS Australia (SA) Inc supports the needs of sufferers of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and related illnesses. We do this by providing services and information to members.

Disclaimer

ME/CFS Australia (SA) Inc aims to keep members informed of various research projects, diets, medications, therapies, news items, etc. All communication, both verbal and written, is merely to disseminate information and not to make recommendations or directives.

Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed on this Web site are not necessarily the official views of the Society or its Committee and are not simply an endorsement of products or services.

Become a Member
PDF Application Form (PDF, 242KB)
Why become a member?

Mistaken Conclusions About Systemic Exercise Intolerance Disease Being Comparable To Research Case Definitions Of CFS: A Rebuttal To Chu Et Al.

Tuesday 8 August 2017

 

From the journal Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior:

 

Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior
 

Mistaken conclusions about systemic exercise intolerance disease being comparable to research case definitions of CFS: A rebuttal to Chu et al.

By Leonard A. Jason, Madison Sunnquist, Kristen Gleason & Pamela Fox
Pages 1-8 | Received 15 Jun 2017, Accepted 28 Jul 2017, Published online: 07 Aug 2017
Copyright © 2017 Informa UK Limited

ABSTRACT

The recent article by Chu et al. contrasted different case definitions that have been used to describe chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

In particular, their study compared the new Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) with three other ME and CFS case definitions.

We appreciate these investigators attempting to use and operationalize the new IOM criteria; however, we disagree with their main conclusion that the percentage of patients selected by the IOM criteria is comparable to the percentage selected by other research case definitions.

This conclusion could potentially encourage investigators to use the IOM criteria for research purposes. In this commentary, we discuss our observations of the Chu et al. article with respect to their methodology, illustrating how the conclusions of an investigation can be influenced by the manner in which case definitions are operationalized.

 

Full article…

 


 

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Previous Page