*GG*
senior member
- Messages
- 6,396
- Location
- Concord, NH
Is this one of the controversial definitions?
That is the criteria my Dr used for me.
Just curious.
Thanks!
That is the criteria my Dr used for me.
Just curious.
Thanks!
CFS diagnostic criteria used, 1994 definition
- Thread starter *GG*
- Start date
They are all controversial, but people have been complaining for years that this one is not strict enough, and then in 2005 they revised this definition, and it is now a joke. It could now include almost anybody.
The revised definition goes by the following names:
Revised Fukuda, empiric definition, and Reeves criteria.
Do not feel bad about them using this to diagnose you, officially it is all they will use in the US.
The best one is the Canadian criteria, very strict criteria
The revised definition goes by the following names:
Revised Fukuda, empiric definition, and Reeves criteria.
Do not feel bad about them using this to diagnose you, officially it is all they will use in the US.
The best one is the Canadian criteria, very strict criteria
Sorry, I keep posting, but I can tell you are trying to get to grips with all of this. I will try and explain the definitions we now have.
The first CFS CDC definition in the US was 'Holmes' 1988, this was replaced by 'Fukuda' 1994 (The one they used to diagnose you), and this was then replaced by the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005.
Right now there is trouble brewing, because the CDC is still using the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005 definition, but they are now not stating this on their website. To top this off, they used the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005 in their XMRV negative study, said so in the paper, but are now saying on their website, that they used 'Fukuda' 1994. This is deliberate, as it has been repeatedly pointed out to them.
To understand why this is important, you need to understand how using the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005 definition, effects the prevalence rates of CFS. Fukuda 1994, puts prevalence at about 1 million, Revised Fukuda 2005, around 4 million. This criteria will also include those with Major Depressive Disorder and not CFS, because it is so unspecific.
The Canadian criteria 2003, is very specific, and you need quite a few symptoms and severity to be included, and a couple of days ago it was revised, so that it can now be used for research purposes. Not that it couldn't already be. People all over the world have been fighting to get their relevant health authorities to use it. In Scotland, this may actually happen.
The first CFS CDC definition in the US was 'Holmes' 1988, this was replaced by 'Fukuda' 1994 (The one they used to diagnose you), and this was then replaced by the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005.
Right now there is trouble brewing, because the CDC is still using the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005 definition, but they are now not stating this on their website. To top this off, they used the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005 in their XMRV negative study, said so in the paper, but are now saying on their website, that they used 'Fukuda' 1994. This is deliberate, as it has been repeatedly pointed out to them.
To understand why this is important, you need to understand how using the 'Revised Fukuda' 2005 definition, effects the prevalence rates of CFS. Fukuda 1994, puts prevalence at about 1 million, Revised Fukuda 2005, around 4 million. This criteria will also include those with Major Depressive Disorder and not CFS, because it is so unspecific.
The Canadian criteria 2003, is very specific, and you need quite a few symptoms and severity to be included, and a couple of days ago it was revised, so that it can now be used for research purposes. Not that it couldn't already be. People all over the world have been fighting to get their relevant health authorities to use it. In Scotland, this may actually happen.
Just to draw one distinction, all of the aforementioned criteria are intended for research, with the exception of the "Canadian', which is commonly abbreviated CCD or CCC. The CCC was developed for the purpose of clinical diagnosis.
One thing you might want to do is watch the following webinar by Dr. Leonard Jason (hosted by the CAA).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JelwLvzW6eI
Dr. Jason is a tireless champion of getting a good research case definition and continues to publish studies on the subject with the goal of establishing a research definition based on the CCC.
One of the most critical points is the notion of Post Extertional Malaise (PEM). PEM is listed as a possible symptom for diagnosis in Fukuda but not a required one. The CCC required PEM.
Dr. Jason does a good job of being detailed while making things understandable in the webinar. He pretty well slices the CDC's 2005 definition into pieces while staying objective and using well documented facts.
One thing you might want to do is watch the following webinar by Dr. Leonard Jason (hosted by the CAA).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JelwLvzW6eI
Dr. Jason is a tireless champion of getting a good research case definition and continues to publish studies on the subject with the goal of establishing a research definition based on the CCC.
One of the most critical points is the notion of Post Extertional Malaise (PEM). PEM is listed as a possible symptom for diagnosis in Fukuda but not a required one. The CCC required PEM.
Dr. Jason does a good job of being detailed while making things understandable in the webinar. He pretty well slices the CDC's 2005 definition into pieces while staying objective and using well documented facts.
Otis, Jason has just revised the Canadian criteria for research purposes.
http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ajbb/ajbb62120-135.pdf
http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ajbb/ajbb62120-135.pdf
*GG*
senior member
- Messages
- 6,396
- Location
- Concord, NH
Thanks for the input V99 and Otis!