Groggy Doggy
Guest
- Messages
- 1,130
Excellent! I am glad David is passionate about helping our community
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.
I've just listened to this and it's terrific - some interesting updates on what's happening, too.
Please leave them a comment to thank them, if you haven't already (I made one but it's held in moderation).
I left a very supportive comment that was in moderation the other day. I checked back and the comment didnt get posted. Wonder why?
My comment was in moderation for several days (but I could still see it, marked as being in moderation).
My comment was in moderation for several days (but I could still see it, marked as being in moderation).
Thanks.Special mention goes to other advocates who have helped, David discusses their contribution toward the end. Everyone who has helped this along the way deserves a round of applause, especially @Tom Kindlon
Qual Life Res. 2015 Apr;24(4):905-7. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0819-0. Epub 2014 Oct 11.
Assessment of recovery status in chronic fatigue syndrome using normative data.
Matthees A1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Adamowicz et al. have reviewed criteria previously employed to define recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). They suggested such criteria have generally lacked stringency and consistency between studies and recommended future research should require "normalization of symptoms and functioning".
METHODS:
Options regarding how "normalization of symptoms and functioning" might be operationalized for CFS cohorts are explored.
RESULTS:
A diagnosis of CFS excludes many chronic disabling illnesses present in the general population, and CFS cohorts can almost exclusively consist of people of working age; therefore, it is suggested that thresholds for recovery should not be based on population samples which include a significant proportion of sick, disabled or elderly individuals. It is highlighted how a widely used measure in CFS research, the SF-36 physical function subscale, is not normally distributed. This is discussed in relation to how recovery was defined for a large intervention trial, the PACE trial, using a method that assumes a normal distribution. Summary data on population samples are also given, and alternative methods to assess recovery are proposed.
CONCLUSIONS:
The "normalization of symptoms and function" holds promise as a means of defining recovery from CFS at the current time. However, care is required regarding how such requirements are operationalized, otherwise recovery rates may be overstated, and perpetuate the confusion and controversy noted by Adamowicz et al.
Comment on
- Defining recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome: a critical review. [Qual Life Res. 2014]