4.5 Article

Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review-heterogeneity of definition limits study comparison

Journal

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
Volume 106, Issue 11, Pages 1087-1094

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-320196

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [SRF-2013-06-013]
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [SRF-2013-06-013] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found a great diversity in definitions of recovery and recovery rates in paediatric CFS/ME, with recovery rates ranging from 4.5% to 83% and a wide variety of outcome measures used to define recovery.
Background Paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a common illness with a major impact on quality of life. Recovery is poorly understood. Our aim was to describe definitions of recovery in paediatric CFS/ME, the rate of recovery and the time to recovery. Methods This systematic review included a detailed search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library between 1994 and July 2018. Inclusion criteria were (1) clinical trials and observational studies, (2) participants aged <19 years with CFS/ME, (3) conducted in Western Healthcare systems and (4) studies including a measure of recovery and time taken to recover. Results Twelve papers (10 studies) were identified, involving 826 patients (range 23-135). Recovery rates were highly varied, ranging between 4.5% and 83%. Eleven distinct definitions of recovery were used; six were composite outcomes while five used unidimensional outcomes. Outcome measures used to define recovery were highly heterogeneous. School attendance (n=8), fatigue (n=6) and physical functioning (n=4) were the most common outcomes included in definition of recovery. Only five definitions included a personal measure of recovery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available