Gynecological History in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Reeves, et al., 2010)

[WillowJ]

Besides the fact that Reeves is still publishing "CFS" studies... is there any significance to this? I know it applies to MDD and random fatigued and depressed people, not actual CFS patients ("a population-based study" is a tip-off to Reeves inclusion, if his name on the author list wasn't enough).

Is this a potential shift towards interest in biomedical, or is this a "just a hysterical (notice the random womb dysfunction including pain not related to named disorder) women's disease"?

Boneva RS, Maloney EM, Lin JM, Jones JF, Wieser F, Nater UM, Heim CM, Reeves WC. "Gynecological History in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Population-Based Case-Control Study." J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010 Nov 20. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21091051

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia .
Abstract

Abstract Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) affects disproportionately more women than men, and the condition is more common at perimenopause. We examined gynecological history events as risk factors for CFS. Methods: In a case-control study from a randomly selected population sample from Wichita, Kansas, 36 women with CFS and 48 nonfatigued controls, of similar age, race, and body mass index (BMI), answered a structured gynecological history questionnaire. Results: CFS cases and controls had the same mean age (51 years) and age at menarche (12 years). Overall, a greater proportion of women with CFS than controls reported pelvic pain unrelated to menstruation (22.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004), endometriosis (36.1% vs. 16.7, %, p = 0.046), and periods of amenorrhea (53.9 % vs. 46.2%, p = 0.06). Compared to controls, women in the CFS group had a higher mean number of pregnancies (2.8 vs 2.0, p = 0.05) and gynecological surgeries (1.8 vs. 1.1, p = 0.05). Similar proportions of the CFS (69.4%) and control (72.9%) groups were menopausal. Although menopausal women in the CFS and control groups had similar mean age (55.5 and 55.8, respectively), menopause occurred about 4.4 years earlier in the CFS group (41.7 years vs. 46.1 years, respectively, p = 0.11). Among menopausal women, 76% of the CFS group reported hysterectomy vs. 54.6% of controls (p = 0.09), and 56% of women with CFS reported oophorectomy vs. 34.3% of controls (p = 0.11). Conclusions: The higher prevalence of gynecological conditions and gynecological surgeries in women with CFS highlights the importance of evaluating gynecological health in these patients and the need for more research to clarify the chronologic and the pathophysiological relationships between these conditions and CFS.

 

[caledonia]

It looks like more "hysterical" stuff still in the pipeline to me.

 

[paddygirl]

On the other hand Reeves could save a lot of time and energy and ask Judy Mikovits to explain to him the role of hormones in XMRV infection.

While going through my denial/acceptance stage after diagnosis I always thought the high midlife female incidence was a big fat clue. I asked my Rheum (can't spell that word) was there a link with the Endometreosis and allergies I had. I didn't have the full measure of him yet and thought I was talking to someone who would be as interested as I was.

Much later I saw an interview with Dr M in a lab saying that the balance of the hormones is implicated in the illness for women, it makes so much sense. By the way, the levels of hysterectomy in that study are huge

 

[Sasha]

Doesn't it seem a phenomenally high proportion of women having hysterectomy even in the control group (55%) and very early menopause, again even in the control group (46.1 years)? This doesn't sound like a random sample of the population to me; plus if the CFS criteria are vague (Reeves) the CFS group is going to include more people with any condition that could cause fatigue, including gynae conditions. I'm not convinced this study is relevant to ME/CFS.

 

[Min]

It looks like more "hysterical" stuff still in the pipeline to me.

it's those wandering wombs of course!

 

[Esther12]

I think a lot of these conditions can be viewed as psychological.

Skin conditions in 'that area' - even if they're clearly visibile, and not just 'pain' are often treated rather dismissively even today, partly because there's often not much that they can do.

 

[Dolphin]

Besides the fact that Reeves is still publishing "CFS" studies... is there any significance to this? I know it applies to MDD and random fatigued and depressed people, not actual CFS patients ("a population-based study" is a tip-off to Reeves inclusion, if his name on the author list wasn't enough).

Is this a potential shift towards interest in biomedical, or is this a "just a hysterical (notice the random womb dysfunction including pain not related to named disorder) women's disease"?

They have done quite a few "biomedical" studies over the years - it's different to the UK where psychobabblers do only a token amount of that sort of stuff - it's been a much bigger percentage of the CDC's output. It's just like you say one can have no faith in the data because of how the "CFS" patients are picked. It may give us some information about the sort of people picked by their dodgy definition for CFS e.g. some women who have had hysterectomies.

 

[Desdinova]

Oh Wonderful yet another useless CDC Population-Based Case-Control Study. This is a survey similar to those previous surveys done by the CDC in Wichita, Kansas or Georgia. One that selects its CFS group based on the CDC’s flawed CFS definition criteria and flawed methodology. But then again that’s how they get the results and statistics that they want and like. Garbage in Garbage out! Just remember everyone that Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a complex and serious illness with no known cause or causes (after all the CDC told us so ). And it appears apparently that it’s one that will be solved using flawed data along with a flawed definition criteria anytime now. Every time one of these studies comes out I want to scream.

 

[WillowJ]

They have done quite a few "biomedical" studies over the years - it's different to the UK where psychobabblers do only a token amount of that sort of stuff - it's been a much bigger percentage of the CDC's output. It's just like you say one can have no faith in the data because of how the "CFS" patients are picked. It may give us some information about the sort of people picked by their dodgy definition for CFS e.g. some women who have had hysterectomies.

Previously, yes. Lately, the CDC's (bio)psychosocial school is almost competing with the Brits' psychosocial school. Namely, none except stress/HPA/related genes/allostatic load and that stupid sleep one that felt objective evidence of dyspnea meant patients "may suffer from sleep state misperception."
And the one rogue study with Bristol Sorensen and Suzanne Vernon on PEM and the gene behind Sorensen's complement activation theory.

But yes, the Reeves criteria doesn't select for any disease reliably, so the data is worthless for any purpose. No use for ME/CFS, no use for MDD, no use for CF, nothing.