Do you know (Foxglove or anyone reading this) if the ICC Criteria is meant to be the most current, up-to-date diagnostic criteria that is meant to supersede all prior diagnostic criteria? Or is this not the case?
This is my understanding. I am not sure how things were before 1988 Holmes definition. I get the idea there was a consortium of mostly polio doctors, including someone named Parrish and that they may have had a consensus definiton possibly based on Ramsay, or possibly different regional definitions (such as atypical polio or epidemic neuromyasthenia in the US). But that these polio docs were originally the ones who cared for ME patients.
And that after Tahoe (but not before), the early ME/CFS docs we know of: such as Komaroff, Hyde, Peterson, Bell, Cheney, and so on, knew and worked with these polio docs. (Obviously, Cheney and Peterson did not know to refer their patients to the polio docs during the Tahoe outbreak; they called CDC.)
In 1988 an international group led by the US CDC wrote a new definition and coined the CFS name. Komaroff was part of this, but according to Hyde, Parrish and the other polio doctors left the meeting in frustration. I think Hyde followed them, if I recall correctly.
Also in 1991, the Oxford definition was published by psychiatrists in UK. It was (and is) used almost exclusively by psychiatrists and psychologists who appear to blame the condition on some fault of the patients (which fault changes, but it's always a fault).
CDC or someone thought there was something wrong with the 1988 definition (I can't recall what just at the moment--it might have been "too many symtpoms gets somatoform disorder patients included"--although it didn't have all that many symptoms, IMO, and redness in the throat was required, so I think it could have been an operalizational error combined with not liking to work with sick people when the illness is not well understood, or getting patients with various other diseases and not being good at differential diagnosis but recognizing that it might not be just ME/CFS ppl).
So in 1994 they wrote a new one with fewer required symptoms. Known as Fukuda or sometimes "International" (despite that many definitions have been international).
But none of the required symptoms of 1994 were specific, and none were physical. And still the confusing name. Not sure it solved any of the problems they wanted to solve, as papers continued to be published that other people could get diagnosed unintentially (if differential diagnosis was not good enough).
So in 2003, an international consortium supported by Canada but led by people who actually liked working with this population made a new definition that explained the illness more fully. This is called the Canadian Consensus definition. They used both names in order to not be confusing and because people are diagnosed with CFS, but as far as I could tell they really only thought ME was the correct usage.
In 2005, CDC published a way to operationalize Fukuda by not actually using the symptoms and adding others. This is known as the Reeves criteria or "Empirical" critieria (from the title) although it technically isn't a separate criteria. Hardly anyone besided CDC has used it, and it let to such results as publishing a paper saying people with CFS didn't have dysautonomia (but that hardly anyone in the study fulfilled the original Fukuda criteria for CFS). Plus a bunch of insulting junk papers.
In 2011, the International Consensus Criteria were made by some of the same people who wrote CCC and some new ones. They are basically updated CCC with what was known or thought at the time. This was when XMRV was thought to be a real thing, however.
In 2015, IOM/National Academy of Sciences made a literature review and definition. They included some experts that weren't previously working in the field, and some that previously were.
The late A. Martin Lerner was an author on both CCC and IOM.
Cindy Bateman and Nancy Klimas were authors on both ICC and IOM.
Other authors of IOM that we would previously know include Lily Chu, Ben Natleson, Betsey Keller, and Peter Rowe. (They didn't work on previous definitions.)
Reviewers of IOM include:
Dan Peterson, who worked on Fukuda and CCC
And also include:
Susan Levine, Chris Snell, Charles Lapp (retired), Jose Montoya (dismissed). (They didn't work on previous definitons).
So to answer your question about what updates what, Fukuda updates and replaces Holmes.
CCC to some people (some of the better experts, and many/most patients) updated Fukuda. To those people ICC may update CCC, or they may still like CCC.
We can safely ignore Oxford, Empirical/Reeves, and definitions that are not much used (there are more!).
If there's any one definition that would be meant to update all the others, it would be IOM, as it was a consensus between both government (the Holmes/Fukuda camp) and specialists (including those who used CCC/ICC).
But there was some bad publicity before the IOM report due to poor communication (of course), and no one understood what was going on.
When the report turned out actually good (none of us expect good in any case, I think), it's been really hard for the community to put aside all that energy against it. (My personal view).
Plus most people didn't like the name, or at least didn't like randoms and doctors making fun of the name (which was occurring in newspaper and Medscape comments). I think I remember a shift from "how would you pronounce that" to "it's just as terrible as the previous name" after the news articles started coming out.
But no matter which definition there are still papers saying it's not good enough.
I am trying to figure out if most ME/CFS specialists would be using the ICC Criteria and if so, would they be assessing for muscle weakness/ fatiguability and ion channelopathies (or would those two issues not be included)?
That I couldn't tell you. Neither of the ones I saw did anything besides take history and check that I'd had some tests to rule out major other diseases, test for viruses, and check out my heart.
I was a bit disappointed, especially since one of them told me I was "atypical," and I was hoping to get some immunological testing even though Klimas' clinic is too far for me. I thought they might refer me to some specialists who might be more knowledgeable to follow up on my random wierd tests. But no.