Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
Some extracts from the paper:
It isn't alluded to explicitly but such a method of defining CFS means the comparisons between and CFS may not be true overall i.e. if people with CFS and POTS were included, the overall averages for CFS could be different.
Note: this is the percentage previously diagnosed with CFS. The actual percentage who could have CFS is higher (see later quote)
Patients with CFS
Patients with CFS were consecutive patients referred to the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary who fulfilled the Fukuda 1994 diagnostic criteria for CFS8 who had been shown on haemodynamic testing to not have PoTS.
It isn't alluded to explicitly but such a method of defining CFS means the comparisons between and CFS may not be true overall i.e. if people with CFS and POTS were included, the overall averages for CFS could be different.
Exact percentage is 21% (see Table 1).Around 20% of the total cohort reported having CFS
Note: this is the percentage previously diagnosed with CFS. The actual percentage who could have CFS is higher (see later quote)
Last edited: