Contrasting Case Definitions: ME International Consensus Criteria vs. the Fukuda et al. CFS Criteria

[Dolphin]

Contrasting Case Definitions: The ME International Consensus Criteria vs. the Fukuda et al. CFS Criteria

AUTHOR(S)
Brown, Abigail A.; Jason, Leonard A.; Evans, Meredyth A.; Flores, Samantha

PUB. DATE
March 2013

SOURCE
North American Journal of Psychology;2013, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p103

ABSTRACT
This article contrasts the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis International Consensus Criteria (ME-ICC; Carruthers et al., 2011) with the Fukuda et al. (1994) CFS criteria.

Findings indicated that the ME-ICC case definition criteria identified a subset of patients with more functional impairments and physical, mental and cognitive problems than the larger group of patients meeting the Fukuda et al. (1994) criteria.

The sample of patients meeting ME-ICC criteria also had significantly greater rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

These findings suggest that utilizing the MEICC may identify a more homogenous group of individuals with more severe symptomatology and functional impairment. Implications of the high rates of psychiatric comorbidity found in the ME-ICC sample are discussed.

One can see the start of the article at: http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-322563471/contrasting-case-definitions-the-me-international
There is also a button at the end:

Read the full-text article, try us out FREE today​

I have the full paper printed (not sure I saved it). All the data is in the tables

 

[Dolphin]

2 pieces of data:

“As is evident, the ME-ICC had significantly worse scores on 53 items, and most items were significant at the p<.01 level. For the majority of the items that were not significantly different and not included in the table, 31 items, the ME-ICC had directionally worse scores than the Fukuda et al. (1994) CFS group."

The ME-ICC group had significantly worse scores on four subscales of the SF-36: Physical Functioning, Bodily Pain, Vitality and Social Functioning.

 

[Ember]

2 pieces of data: The ME-ICC group had significantly worse scores on four subscales of the SF-36: Physical Functioning, Bodily Pain, Vitality and Social Functioning.

See also biophile's post on these findings.

 

[Valentijn]

From what I recall (if this based on the Leonard Jason study which found higher incidence of psychiatric disorder if using CCC or ICC), patients were assessed using the DSM-IV without a diagnosis of ME/CFS being taken into account. The DSM-IV allows physical symptoms of an undiagnosed medical condition to count as psychiatric symptoms.

If I sign up for the free trial to read the full paper, I'll never remember to unsubscribe in time

 

[Pyrrhus]

Full paper available:

Contrasting Case Definitions: The ME International Consensus Criteria vs. the Fukuda et al. CFS Criteria (Brown et al., 2013)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4215640/

 

[Pyrrhus]

Here is a follow-up paper from the same authors on the same subject:

The importance of a research case definition (Jason et al., 2017)
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/the-importance-of-a-research-case-definition.55300/

 

[Pyrrhus]

And here are some research papers that looks at brain differences between ME-ICC and ME-Fukuda patient cohorts:

Diffusion tensor imaging reveals neuronal microstructural changes in ME/CFS (Thapaliya et al., 2021)
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/thr...agnostic-criteria-thapaliya-et-al-2021.85111/

Volumetric differences in hippocampal subfields and associations with clinical measures in ME/CFS (Thapaliya et al., 2022)
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/thr...easures-in-me-cfs-thapaliya-et-al-2022.87423/

 

[Pyrrhus]

And here is a discussion thread that outlines the current sets of diagnostic criteria:

ME/CFS: Diagnostic Criteria
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/me-cfs-diagnostic-criteria.86943/