NEJM on CFS

[MeSci]

http://www.jwatch.org/na37817/2015/...y-diagnosis-and-management?query=pfw-featured

June 15, 2015

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Biology, Diagnosis, and Management

Anthony L. Komaroff, MD
Despite progress in understanding the biological basis of CFS, there are no good diagnostic tests or treatments that help all patients.

Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) “Real”?

The most widely used case definition of chronic fatigue syndrome, published in 1994, consists entirely of symptoms.1 Because anyone can say they have symptoms, clinicians have asked whether objective evidence of underlying biological abnormalities exists.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently concluded that CFS has a biological basis.2,3 Based on a survey of >9000 research articles, the IOM states that CFS “is a serious, chronic, complex systemic disease that often can profoundly affect the lives of patients.”2 Moreover, CFS “is not, as many clinicians believe, a psychological problem,”4 although some patients certainly have psychiatric comorbidities requiring diagnosis and treatment.

Read full article here.

 

[MeSci]

Another piece the same day:

http://www.jwatch.org/na37816/2015/...drome-were-making-progress?query=pfw-featured

News About Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: We're Making Progress
Diane E. Judge, APN/CNP
Dispelling the myth that CFS is “all in your head”

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a devastating illness that can interfere with all facets of life. It's not clear how many people suffer from CFS, but a recent estimate suggests the number is between 836,000 and 2.5 million in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), women are two to four times as likely as men to get a diagnosis of this condition. You might also see CFS called by an older name, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), or a combination of the two names (ME/CFS).

Yes, It's “Real”...

Recently the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Institutes of Health took a strong stand on CFS. Based on more than 9000 research studies, these organizations concluded that CFS has a biological basis (occurs because of one or more body malfunctions), declaring it “a serious, chronic, complex systemic disease that can profoundly affect the lives of patients.” They also stated that CFS is not “a psychological problem....”

Read full article here.

 

[Little Bluestem]

Why are they still using a case definition published in 1994?

 

[sarah darwins]

The link to the 2nd article doesn't work for me, @MeSci

 

[MeSci]

The link to the 2nd article doesn't work for me, @MeSci

Must have been a blip - I just tried it and it was OK.

 

[sarah darwins]

Must have been a blip - I just tried it and it was OK.

Ah, it's the shortened link in the "Read full article here." line that isn't working - for either of them. The full links you've given above the extracts work fine.

 

[Undisclosed]

Ah, it's the shortened link in the "Read full article here." line that isn't working - for either of them. The full links you've given above the extracts work fine.

The links have been fixed.

 

[zzz]

The New England Journal of Medicine article is actually extremely significant. The NEJM is considered by many (including its own editors) to be the premier general medical journal, with the highest impact factor among general medical journals (54.42). (The impact factor is the number of all the citations in the two previous years of a journal’s articles divided by the number of the journal’s articles published in those two years.) No other journal comes close to that impact factor.

For decades, the NEJM ignored ME/CFS completely, treating it as if it did not exist. Only three articles about CFS have been published previously in the NEJM, with the last one being published in July of 1989. To finally appear once again in the pages of the NEJM is a big accomplishment - even if the article is a bit mushy.

 

[Asa]

Just a note that editors seem to have problems with SEID: Occupycfs commenters wrote that Annals' Kommaroff piece used Systemic Exertional Intolerance Syndrome instead of Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease. It's now been corrected. But the Judge piece above also used Exertional instead of Exertion.

Obviously not the end of the world, but with so much mis/disinformation about, the better/good info needs to be very professional and precise, IMO.

 

[Dolphin]

The New England Journal of Medicine article is actually extremely significant. The NEJM is considered by many (including its own editors) to be the premier general medical journal, with the highest impact factor among general medical journals (54.42). (The impact factor is the number of all the citations in the two previous years of a journal’s articles divided by the number of the journal’s articles published in those two years.) No other journal comes close to that impact factor.

For decades, the NEJM ignored ME/CFS completely, treating it as if it did not exist. Only three articles about CFS have been published previously in the NEJM, with the last one being published in July of 1989. To finally appear once again in the pages of the NEJM is a big accomplishment - even if the article is a bit mushy.

Note: These weren't published in the NEJM. Just websites that are part of the NEJM group.