August 8th, 2016: Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Jody Smith joins with other ME voices in honor of Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome-like complaints in the general population

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes:
    28,085
    (I'm not recommending this as particularly important. I just want to make a couple of points)

    Free full text at: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/251.long or http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/251.full.pdf html

    I've given each line its own paragraph
     
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes:
    28,085
    Contrast the findings with this study, also from the Netherlands (and both involved Gijs Bleijenberg):

    I've given each line its own paragraph .
     
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes:
    28,085
    The low numbers getting a diagnosis are interesting. US population studies have suggested 10-20%. The percentages might higher e.g. 10+ if exclude those with "CFS-explained (by a chronic illness)" (i.e. a physician assessed them and checked them for things - they were excluded if they had some diagnoses in this paper study) but a diagnosis rate of 10%/similar would still be low. The overall prevalence of CFS-like was only 1% so 6.7% is only 67 per 100,000. I think with better diagnostic tests especially if there was an easy blood test, the numbers diagnosed around the world would likely increase a lot - swelling the numbers of the patient community (who might lobby, donate to research/fundraise for research (or have relatives who might donate/fundraise), write letters to journals/newspapers/etc., etc.).

    (Study was done in 2003)
     
  4. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,281
    Likes:
    45,789
    As someone nearly shipped off to Nijmegen, I find the generally contradictory nature of the studies there to be rather fascinating. Are the "sensible" papers the older ones, indicating that at some point the clinic switched from the "real disease" outlook to the "between the ears" approach? Are there different co-authors in common on the good papers versus the stupid papers? It's just too weird. The researchers conclude in one of their own papers that CBT doesn't have any impact on physical symptoms - yet they persist in pushing it as the only proven effective treatment.

    Maybe they're relying too much on other sources (the idiots in London) instead of their own results.
     
  5. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,613
    Likes:
    12,426
    South Australia
  6. oceanblue

    oceanblue Guest

    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes:
    362
    UK
    I wonder how accurate their CFS diagnosis-by-post was? 1% is quite a lot higher than the US studies of 0.4% (Jason) and 0.25% (Reyes) if I've remembered correctly. Without a clinical evaluation including detailed medical history you can't really make a proper diagnosis, particularly when it comes to excluding other causes of fatigue.

    That only 71% of CFS-like patients had consulted their doctors at all about fatigue must cast some doubt on the accuracy of the diagnosis. If the true rate of CFS was only 0.4% or less, it would mean that most of the CFS-like group didn't have CFS, which would make the findings rather suspect.

    Did they say how old the sample was?
     
  7. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes:
    28,085
    They don't give an average age for the CFS-like group, from a quick look. I do give the full text link above if anyone is sufficiently curious.

    Maybe, maybe not. I consulted my doctor for my muscle problems and the like (and then other symptoms like IBS) over a number of years. I only consulted about the fatigue when I got very severe. I'm not saying that's typical but it can happen.

    (small correction: Reyes: 0.235%) Yes, there is a big problem knowing what the group would be like without exclusions.

    I'm inclined to think 0.4-0.5% (rather than 0.235%) is closer to the real figures - I think the CDC may have been overly strict with its exclusions.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page