How common is fatigue across chronic health conditions in children and young people? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue is a common experience for adults with chronic health conditions. Less is understood about the prevalence of fatigue in the paediatric population. This review aimed to synthesise what is known about the point prevalence of fatigue across chronic health conditions within children and young people. Three databases were searched, from January 2000 to July 2021, to identify studies reporting prevalence rates in chronic health conditions in under 18s. Methodological quality was assessed with a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cross-Sectional Studies. Twenty-five studies were included. Variations in the assessment of fatigue, across a range of conditions, and heterogenous reporting of prevalence precluded meaningful meta-analysis and so narrative synthesis was completed. Discrepancies in prevalence reports were noted within and across conditions and between child and parent reports but showed fatigue to be more prevalent in those with chronic health conditions compared to healthy peers. Despite discrepancy in prevalence rates of fatigue, some level of fatigue is present across chronic health conditions and tends to be higher in this population compared to healthy peers. Limitations alongside clinical implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".