The empirical definition is Reeves et al. (2005).Hi Dolphin,
Does the paper actually specify that they are refering to the empirical/2003 definition?
I had thought that they didn't specify which international criteria?
Thanks for any info,
Bob
The paper references Reeves et al. (2003):
Reeves WC, Lloyd A, Vernon SD, et al. The international chronic
fatigue syndrome study group identifi cation of ambiguities in the
1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case defi nition and
recommendations for resolution. BMC Health Serv Res 2003, 3: 2.
Thereafter allocation was
stratified by centre, alternative criteria for chronic fatigue
syndrome12 and myalgic encephalomyelitis,13 and
depressive disorder (major or minor depressive episode or
dysthymia),14 with computer-generated probabilistic
minimisation
Table 3 shows baseline and outcomes data, and fi gure 2
shows profi les for the primary outcomes. In the fi naladjusted
models (fi gure 3), participants had less fatigue
and better physical function after CBT and GET than they
did after APT or SMC alone. Outcomes after APT were
no better than they were after SMC. Allowing for
clustering eff ects caused by participants attending the
same main practitioner had little eff ect on these results;
intraclass correlation coeffi cients ranged from 002 to
011 for fatigue, and 001 to 003 for physical function.
Participant subgroups meeting international criteria for
chronic fatigue syndrome, London criteria for myalgic
encephalomyelitis, and depressive disorder criteria did
not differ in the pattern of treatment effects (figure 2; all
pinteractions were non-signifi cant).
Our findings were much the same for participants
meeting the different diagnostic criteria for chronic
fatigue syndrome and for myalgic encephalomyelitis, for
those with depressive disorder, and after allowing for
clustering effects.