• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Diagnosis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: where are we now? Maes M, et al.

snowathlete

Senior Member
Messages
5,374
Location
UK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23480562

Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization has classified Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) as a neurological disease since 1969 considering Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) as a synonym used interchangeably for ME since 1969. ME and CFS are considered to be neuro-immune disorders, characterized by specific symptom profiles and a neuro-immune pathophysiology. However, there is controversy as to which criteria should be used to classify patients with "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." Areas covered: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria consider chronic fatigue (CF) to be distinctive for CFS, whereas the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) stresses the presence of post-exertion malaise (PEM) as the hallmark feature of ME. These case definitions have not been subjected to rigorous external validation methods, for example, pattern recognition analyses, instead being based on clinical insights and consensus. Expert opinion: Pattern recognition methods showed the existence of three qualitatively different categories: (a) CF, where CF evident, but not satisfying full CDC syndrome criteria. (b) CFS, satisfying CDC criteria but without PEM. (c) ME, where PEM is evident in CFS. Future research on this "chronic fatigue spectrum" should, therefore, use the abovementioned validated categories and novel tailored algorithms to classify patients into ME, CFS, or CF.
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23480562

...These case definitions have not been subjected to rigorous external validation methods, for example, pattern recognition analyses, instead being based on clinical insights and consensus.
think that's exactly right. Hopefully the large CDC clinical study under way gathering info on large numbers of patients from Klimas, Peterson etc will allow such pattern recognition studies to take place on a large scale. Then we can have a face-off between CDC, CCC & new ICC criteria. Should be interesting.