Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
7 December 2011: ehp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/18/0163278711424281.abstract?rss=1
Leonard A. Jason, Abigail A. Brown abrown57@depaul.edu, Erin Clyne, Lindsey Bartgis, Meredyth Evans, Molly Brown.
Abstract
'This article uses data from patients recruited using the 1994 case definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) to contrast those meeting criteria for the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) Canadian case definition with those that did not meet these criteria.
The study also contrasts those meeting criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) based on criteria from Ramsay and other theorists with those that did not meet the ME criteria.
The ME/CFS case definition criteria identified a subset of patients with more functional impairments and physical, mental, and cognitive problems than the subset not meeting these criteria.
The ME subset had more functional impairments, and more severe physical and cognitive symptoms than the subset not meeting ME criteria.
When applied to a population meeting the 1994 CFS case definition, both ME/CFS and ME criteria appear to select a more severe subset of patients.'
Note: There is obviously more to it that this stupid extract states. I believe this study has been anticipated for a while now and it is a pain that (once again) payment is required for full access (though I shall try and find the darn thing from somewhere )
Essentially this was a study that sought to compare patients defined by the various criteria that are used most frequently. Ramsay was used for the 'ME' aspect and this is pretty cool I think (then again I am somewhat biased in that respect).
I would hope that the full paper is better able to define any differences in symptomatology and severity between diagnosed patients and indeed if there are key identifying factors between perhaps (and dare I say) 'ME' and 'CFS' - personally I don't think there are (at least nothing that can be identified by the present criteria alone) but anyway...
It could be important although I expect for those proponents of the International ME Criteria it will be seen as a shame that this was not included - but one can't expect miracles
Leonard A. Jason, Abigail A. Brown abrown57@depaul.edu, Erin Clyne, Lindsey Bartgis, Meredyth Evans, Molly Brown.
Abstract
'This article uses data from patients recruited using the 1994 case definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) to contrast those meeting criteria for the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) Canadian case definition with those that did not meet these criteria.
The study also contrasts those meeting criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) based on criteria from Ramsay and other theorists with those that did not meet the ME criteria.
The ME/CFS case definition criteria identified a subset of patients with more functional impairments and physical, mental, and cognitive problems than the subset not meeting these criteria.
The ME subset had more functional impairments, and more severe physical and cognitive symptoms than the subset not meeting ME criteria.
When applied to a population meeting the 1994 CFS case definition, both ME/CFS and ME criteria appear to select a more severe subset of patients.'
Note: There is obviously more to it that this stupid extract states. I believe this study has been anticipated for a while now and it is a pain that (once again) payment is required for full access (though I shall try and find the darn thing from somewhere )
Essentially this was a study that sought to compare patients defined by the various criteria that are used most frequently. Ramsay was used for the 'ME' aspect and this is pretty cool I think (then again I am somewhat biased in that respect).
I would hope that the full paper is better able to define any differences in symptomatology and severity between diagnosed patients and indeed if there are key identifying factors between perhaps (and dare I say) 'ME' and 'CFS' - personally I don't think there are (at least nothing that can be identified by the present criteria alone) but anyway...
It could be important although I expect for those proponents of the International ME Criteria it will be seen as a shame that this was not included - but one can't expect miracles
