MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399299594 · doi:10.1186/s12967-024-05349-7

Systematic review of fatigue severity in ME/CFS patients: insights from randomized controlled trials

2024· review· en· W4399299594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jae‐Woong Park, Byung‐Jin Park, Jin‐Seok Lee, Eunjung Lee, Yo‐Chan Ahn, Chang‐Gue Son

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Translational Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and Technology
KeywordsMedicineChronic fatigue syndromeRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineCINAHLPopulationMeta-analysisChronic fatiguePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating illness medically unexplained, affecting approximately 1% of the global population. Due to the subjective complaint, assessing the exact severity of fatigue is a clinical challenge, thus, this study aimed to produce comprehensive features of fatigue severity in ME/CFS patients. METHODS: We systematically extracted the data for fatigue levels of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting ME/CFS from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL throughout January 31, 2024. We normalized each different measurement to a maximum 100-point scale and performed a meta-analysis to assess fatigue severity by subgroups of age, fatigue domain, intervention, case definition, and assessment tool, respectively. RESULTS: Among the total of 497 relevant studies, 60 RCTs finally met our eligibility criteria, which included a total of 7088 ME/CFS patients (males 1815, females 4532, and no information 741). The fatigue severity of the whole 7,088 patients was 77.9 (95% CI 74.7-81.0), showing 77.7 (95% CI 74.3-81.0) from 54 RCTs in 6,706 adults and 79.6 (95% CI 69.8-89.3) from 6 RCTs in 382 adolescents. Regarding the domain of fatigue, 'cognitive' (74.2, 95% CI 65.4-83.0) and 'physical' fatigue (74.3, 95% CI 68.3-80.3) were a little higher than 'mental' fatigue (70.1, 95% CI 64.4-75.8). The ME/CFS participants for non-pharmacological intervention (79.1, 95% CI 75.2-83.0) showed a higher fatigue level than those for pharmacological intervention (75.5, 95% CI 70.0-81.0). The fatigue levels of ME/CFS patients varied according to diagnostic criteria and assessment tools adapted in RCTs, likely from 54.2 by ICC (International Consensus Criteria) to 83.6 by Canadian criteria and 54.2 by MFS (Mental Fatigue Scale) to 88.6 by CIS (Checklist Individual Strength), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review firstly produced comprehensive features of fatigue severity in patients with ME/CFS. Our data will provide insights for clinicians in diagnosis, therapeutic assessment, and patient management, as well as for researchers in fatigue-related investigations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0430.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Translational MedicineSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207