The adoption of CFS/ME case definitions to assess prevalance: a systematic review

[Firestormm]

The adoption of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis case definitions to assess prevalence: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Prevalence estimates have been based on several case definitions of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The purpose of this work is to provide a rigorous overview of their application in prevalence research.
Methods

A systematic review of primary studies reporting the prevalence of CFS since 1990 was conducted. Studies were summarized according to study design, prevalence estimates, and case definition used to ascertain cases.
Results

Thirty-one studies were retrieved, and eight different case definitions were found. Early estimates of CFS prevalence were based on the 1988 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Australian, and Oxford. The 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, has been adopted internationally, as a general standard. Only one study has reported prevalence according to the more recent, Canadian Consensus Criteria. Additional estimates were also found according to definitions by Ho-Yen, the 2005 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention empirical definition, and an epidemiological case definition.
Conclusions

Advances in clinical case definitions during the past 10 years such as the Canadian Consensus Criteria have received little attention in prevalence research. Future assessments of prevalence should consider adopting more recent developments, such as the newly available International Consensus Criteria. This move could improve the surveillance of more specific cases found within CFS.

 

[Firestormm]

I felt there was something missing from the conclusion and I can't really comment more or take more from this abstract without reading the full paper which is behind a paywall.

The missing link for me was an answer to the question: why? What substantive reason do the authors presume - based on their systemic review of those articles - is there to adopt either CCC or ICC - or ICC exclusively; for prevalence research?

I wondered if they had been able to predict or ascertain prevalence estimates based on either or both or these more modern criteria and why - other than it is the most recent - the ICC in particular? I felt it lacked something by way of explanation.

I don't need an explanation of course - but I felt the authors should have been more explicit in stating theirs based on this research.

Other than that I don't think much can be taken away from this research method that wasn't already apparent. Do you?