Measures of Fatigue (in RA, fibro, etc.) 2011 paper

[WillowJ]

Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S263-86. doi: 10.1002/acr.20579.

Measures of fatigue: Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF MDQ), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF NRS) for severity, effect, and coping, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20R and CIS8R), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy (Fatigue) (FACIT-F), Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Pediatric Quality Of Life (PedsQL) Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Scale, Profile of Fatigue (ProF), Short Form 36 Vitality Subscale (SF-36 VT), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS).

Hewlett S, Dures E, Almeida C.

Source

Rheumatology Nursing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.

the title is basically a sort of abstract (there is no actual abstract) but the full text is free:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.20579/full

 

[WillowJ]

In response to these concerns, a body of research subsequently led to international consensus that fatigue must be evaluated in all clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis and potentially all fibromyalgia syndrome trials (5, 6). The 12 fatigue patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reviewed in this section have been selected because they are currently or have recently been used in rheumatology populations.

When selecting a fatigue PROM, researchers and clinicians should consider whether their needs are best served by a single-item PROM as a screening tool, by multi-item PROMs that explore broader fatigue issues to create a global score, or by multidimensional PROMs that produce subscale scores for a range of different facets or domains of fatigue (e.g., cognitive and physical fatigue).

Many studies have shown that association between fatigue PROMs and inflammatory markers is not strong, and that fatigue is likely to have multicausal pathways of clinical variables (e.g., pain, disability) and psychosocial variables (e.g., mood, beliefs) combined in varying amounts (1, 8–10).

Fatigue PROMs should therefore show moderate correlation (r = 0.3–0.49) or large correlation (r = >0.5) with these variables (11). Very strong associations (e.g., >0.75) might be expected when examining criterion validity with other fatigue scales.

Fatigue in rheumatologic conditions can be constant and persistent, but can also appear without warning as an overwhelming event (2–4).

Reliability of fatigue PROMs can therefore be problematic to evaluate due to the fluctuating and unpredictable nature of fatigue itself.

(my bolding)